Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-427-811]

Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain

Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Beck, Office of Antidumping Duty

Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482-3464.

Scope of Order

For purposes of this investigation, certain stainless steel wire

rods (SSWR) are products which are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed,

and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in

coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent

or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without

other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot-rolling,

are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The

majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional

shape, annealed, and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters

in diameter.

The SSWR subject to this investigation is currently classifiable

under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020,

7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075,

7221.00.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Amendment of Final Determination

In accordance with section 735 (a) and (d) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), on December 29, 1993, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published its final determination that

certain stainless steel wire rods from France were being sold at less

than fair value (58 FR 68865).

On January 5, 1994, Imphy S.A. and Ugine-Savoie (respondent)

alleged that the Department made clerical errors in its final

calculations. Respondent argued that the Department erroneously applied

best information available (BIA) to the Metalimphy Alloys Corporation

(MAC) and Ugine Stainless and Alloys (US&A) (both divisions of MAC,

which is a subsidiary of Imphy S.A.) further manufactured sales on the

basis that the cost of further manufacturing data did not include costs

associated with certain manufactured sales of MAC. Respondent contends

that the further manufacturing costs were fully provided on the C-1

U.S. sales database under the field ``FURMANU'', which represented

processing charges by outside subcontractors or by Techalloy as the

subcontractor. Respondent further states that the Department accepted

this submission, used it for the preliminary determination, made no

request for further information, and appears to have agreed in the

final determination that the appropriate information regarding these

sales had been submitted.

The Department does not agree that this is a clerical error. The

Department required detailed cost information for further manufacturing

to be reported on the E-2 further manufacturing cost database.

Respondent failed to provide this detailed cost information with

respect to products further manufactured by MAC on the E-2 database,

even though it indicated it had done so on page 2 of the narrative

portion of its May 10, 1993, submission. Respondent reported detailed

costs only for products further manufactured by Techalloy.

Specifically, in its clerical error allegation, respondent

indicated that the cost information for products further manufactured

by MAC was included in the ``FURMANU'' field of the C-1 U.S. sales tape

and that the Department used this for the preliminary determination.

First, we agree that the total further manufacturing costs for MAC were

included on the C-1 U.S. sales tape. However, at the final

determination, we made adjustments to certain elements of the further

manufacturing costs. These elements were only included on the E-2

further manufacturing database. Since respondent failed to provide on

the E-2 database those cost elements for the products further

manufactured by MAC, the Department could not adjust the further

manufacturing costs of the MAC products. Consequently, we also could

not use the costs reported on the C-1 U.S. sales tape since this tape

included only total costs and not the individual costs elements that we

needed to adjust.

Respondent's argument that the Department used the further

manufacturing cost totals on the C-1 U.S. sales tape at the preliminary

determination is unavailing. At the preliminary determination, the

Department used the further manufacturing totals from the C-1 sales

tape only because respondent did not provide a means to link the C-1

and E-2 tapes in time for the preliminary determination. Since there

was no way to link these tapes (until after the preliminary

determination, when we received new tapes in response to the

Department's request), and since the total product further

manufacturing costs were the same on both the E-2 and C-1 databases, we

simply used the total cost figures on the C-1 database. This was not

the case at the final determination, where a way to link these tapes

was available and where we had to adjust certain cost elements on the

E-2 database.

On January 10, 1994, petitioners alleged that the Department made

three clerical errors in the final determination. First, petitioners

alleged that the Department miscalculated the test which ensures that

selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses are not less than

ten percent of the cost of manufacture (COM). Specifically, petitioners

stated that the Department's instructions require COM to be multiplied

by one percent and not ten percent.

We agree that this error is a clerical error. In attempting to make

sure that SG&A expenses were not less than ten percent of the COM, we

mistakenly multiplied the COM by one percent instead of ten percent.

Therefore, we corrected this error by multiplying the COM by ten

percent.

Secondly, petitioners alleged that the Department failed to include

United States commissions in the value-added tax (VAT) readjustment

calculation, pursuant to which we made a deduction from foreign market

value for purchase price comparisons.

After a review of petitioners' allegation and the Department's new

VAT calculation methodology, we have determined that this was a

clerical error. Therefore, we have included commissions in the VAT

readjustment calculation.

Finally, petitioners alleged that the Department double counted

home market indirect selling expenses when deducting this expense from

foreign market value during comparisons of constructed value to

exporter's sales price.

The Department agrees that the double deduction of indirect selling

expenses from foreign market value during comparisons of constructed

value to exporter's sales price was a clerical error. To correct this

error, the Department eliminated the separate variable for indirect

selling expenses from the foreign unit price string.

For further discussion of these clerical errors, see Memorandum

from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford dated January 25, 1994.

Antidumping Duty Order

In accordance with section 736 of the Act, the Department will

direct Customs officers to assess, upon further advice by the

administering authority pursuant to section 736(a)(1) of the Act,

antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the foreign market

value of the merchandise exceeds the United States price for all

entries of certain stainless steel wire rods from France. These

antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of

certain stainless steel wire rods from France entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 5, 1993, the date on

which the Department published its preliminary determination notice in

the Federal Register (58 FR 41726). On or after the date of publication

of this notice in the Federal Register, U.S. Custom officers must

require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated

duties, the following cash deposits for the subject merchandise:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighted-

average

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter margin

percentage

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imphy...................................................... 24.51

Ugine-Savoie............................................... 24.51

All Others................................................. 24.51

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order and amended

final determination with respect to certain stainless steel wire rods

from France, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties

may contact the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the Main Commerce

Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders

currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.21.

Dated: January 25, 1994.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-2028 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P