Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-427-811]

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France: Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Jacques or Jean Kemp, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

3434 or (202) 482-4037, respectively.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this administrative review are certain

stainless steel wire rods (SSWR), 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 review 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, and

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 the order

is dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

On September 11, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the final results of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel wire rods from France

(61 FR 47874). This review covered Imphy S.A., and Ugine-Savoie, two

manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United

States. The period of review (POR) is August 5, 1993, through December

31, 1994.

On September 17, 1996, counsel for the petitioning companies Al

Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Armco Stainless &

[[Page 58524]]

Alloy Products, Carpenter Technology Corp., Republic Engineered Steels,

Talley Metals Technology, Inc., United Steelworkers of America, AFL-

CIO/CLC (``petitioners'') filed allegations of clerical errors with

regard to the final results in the first administrative review of the

antidumping duty order of certain stainless steel wire rods from France

manufactured by Imphy and Ugine-Savoie (``respondents''). We also

received allegations from respondents on September 18, 1996.

Respondents submitted rebuttal comments on September 20, 1996 and

petitioners submitted their rebuttal comments on September 25, 1996.

The allegations and rebuttal comments of both parties were filed in a

timely fashion.

Petitioners alleged that the Department made four ministerial

errors in the final results.

First, petitioners contend that the Department inputted an

incorrect date for the calculation of credit expenses for U.S. sales

with missing pay date information. Second, petitioners contend that the

Department incorrectly applied an exchange rate to respondents'

reported marine insurance expenses that were already denominated in

U.S. dollars. Third, petitioners argued that the Department failed to

include repacking expenses in its calculation of total expenses

incurred by respondents in the United States which was subsequently

used by the margin calculation program to calculate CEP profit. Fourth,

petitioners alleged that the Department failed to use the correct

computer code to cap the CEP offset by the amount of indirect selling

expenses incurred in the United States.

Respondents did not object to petitioners' ministerial allegations

but argued that certain computer coding suggested by petitioners was

incorrect (For further discussion of respondents' arguments concerning

the computer code to correct these clerical errors, please see

Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa dated November

6, 1996 (``Memorandum'')). Although respondents did not object to

petitioners' ministerial error allegation regarding repacking expenses,

they argued that to assure consistent treatment, the Department should

also include repacking as an expense which is deducted from U.S.

revenue, in calculating total actual profit.

After a review of petitioners' allegations, we agree with

petitioners' allegations and have corrected these errors for the

amended final results. We also agree with respondents' argument and

will include repacking expenses in the calculation of the U.S. selling

expense (``SELLEXPU'') variable to ensure consistent treatment in the

calculation of total actual profit. For the computer code we used to

correct these ministerial errors, please see the Memorandum.

Respondents alleged that the Department's margin calculation

program failed to match sales without regard to level of trade when a

control number (CONNUM) was sold in the U.S. at both the end user level

of trade and the distributor level of trade. Respondents alleged that

in these instances, all constructed export price (CEP) and constructed

export price/further manufactured (CEP/FM) sales of the CONNUM were

compared to constructed value, rather than to home market sales of

comparable merchandise.

We agree that this is a clerical error and have corrected it for

the amended final results.

Second, respondents alleged that in determining CEP profit, the

Department neglected to include expenses and profit on those sales in

France that failed the arm's-length test. Respondents contend that the

Department should amend the margin calculation program by including the

arm's-length dataset.

Petitioners contend that respondents are not making a ministerial

error allegation but challenging the Department's decision to exclude

sales that failed the arm's-length test from the calculation of CEP

profit. Petitioners also note that the Department employed the same

methodology in the preliminary results and that respondents did not

dispute the methodology in their case briefs. Petitioners argue that

since the Department must disregard a respondents' sales to its

affiliated parties as a basis for normal value if such sales are not

arm's-length transactions, the expenses associated with such sales

should also be disregarded in the CEP profit calculation. Petitioners

contend that respondents' allegation of a clerical error is misplaced

and should be rejected.

We disagree with respondents that this is a ministerial error. The

exclusion of related party sales from the calculation of CEP profit is

a methodological issue. Consequently, it is inappropriate to change the

CEP profit methodology at this time as a ministerial error. Moreover,

the Department used the same methodology in the preliminary results and

the respondents did not address this issue in their case briefs for the

preliminary results.

Third, respondents alleged that the Department inadvertently

overstated CV profit on the sales used in its computation of CV, by

failing to take packing expense into account.

We agree that this is a clerical error and have corrected the error

for the amended final results.

Fourth, respondents alleged that we failed to make a circumstance

of sale adjustment for credit expense in constructed value comparisons.

Petitioners objected to this ministerial error allegation and

contend that respondents have raised a challenge to a methodological

decision by the Department that was included in the preliminary results

but was never challenged by respondents. Petitioners argue that having

failed to question this methodology in the preliminary results, it is

improper for respondents to make a ministerial error allegation.

We disagree that this is a ministerial error. A circumstance of

sale adjustment for credit expense in constructed value comparisons is

a methodological issue. It is not the Department's policy to make a

circumstance of sale adjustment for credit expense in constructed value

comparisons (see, e.g. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30326, 30360 (June 14,

1996). Thus, it is inappropriate to alter the constructed value

comparison as a ministerial error. Moreover, the Department used this

methodology in the preliminary results and the respondents did not

address this issue in their case briefs.

Fifth, respondents alleged that the Department's margin calculation

program erroneously multiplied the aggregate amount of the margin

calculated by product, sale type and importer by the quantity sold.

Also, respondents stated that there is no need for separate

calculations by importer and that the Department should compute a

uniform duty assessment amount or rate.

Petitioners agree with respondents that the Department's

calculations inadvertently multiplied the aggregate amount of the

margin found for each category (which already reflected the quantity)

by the quantity sold resulting in a clerical error. However,

petitioners state that respondents' argument concerning assessment

instructions were considered and rejected by the Department in the

final results of the first administrative review. Consequently,

petitioners state that it is inappropriate for respondents to raise

this issue again in the context of ministerial error allegations.

We agree that the Department's calculations inadvertently

multiplied the aggregate amount of the margin found for each category

by the quantity

[[Page 58525]]

sold resulting in a clerical error. We disagree with respondents'

assertion that the issue of separate calculations by importer versus a

uniform duty assessment rate is a ministerial error; it is a

methodological issue.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have determined that the following

margins exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

Imphy/Ugine-Savoie........................ 8/5/93-12/31/94 14.15

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between United States price and foreign market value may

vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective,

upon publication of this notice of amended final results of review for

all shipments of certain stainless steel wire rods from France entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates for

those firms as stated above; (2) for previously investigated companies

not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be

the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other

manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 24.51 percent for

stainless steel wire rods, the all others rate established in the LTFV

investigations. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty

Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France, (59 FR 4022,

January 28, 1994).

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's

regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials

or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure

to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: November 7, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-29241 Filed 11-14-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P