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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[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: May 12, 1997.

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, NW., 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 February 18, 1997, 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

(62 FR 7206). 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 January 1, 1995, through December

31, 1995.

On February 19, 1997, we received submissions from Imphy, S.A. and

Ugine-Savoie, and their affiliated United States entities, Metalimphy

Alloys Corp. and Techalloy Company (``respondents'') alleging 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. On February 25, 1997, counsel

for the petitioning companies, Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Armco

Stainless & 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. Respondents submitted rebuttal comments on March 4, 1997 and

petitioners submitted their rebuttal comments on February 26, 1997. The

allegations and rebuttal comments of both parties were filed in a

timely fashion.

Respondents allege that the Department made four ministerial errors

in the final results. First, respondents contend that the Department

neglected to use the revised general and administrative expense (GNA)

and interest expense (INTEX) in the calculation of CEP profit. Second,

respondents allege that in calculating the CEP profit rate, the

Department's margin calculation program failed to include foreign

indirect selling expenses in total expenses, as required by section

772(f)(2) of the antidumping law. Third, respondents allege that the

Department omitted to correct a typographical error in the product code

for a home market control number. Fourth, respondents assert that the

Department did not correctly revise respondents' cost of manufacture

(COM) for constructed value (CV) for certain remelting services.

Petitioners agree with respondents concerning errors 1, 3 and 4.

However, concerning the issue of failing to include foreign indirect

selling expenses in total expenses for the calculation of CEP profit,

petitioners disagree that the Department erred in this respect.

Petitioners contend that respondents' allegation does not constitute a

ministerial issue. Petitioners note that the only revisions to the

final calculations that the Department may make after issuance of a

final results are ``ministerial error'' corrections (see 19 CFR

353.28). Petitioners note that the question of which types of expenses

are proper deductions from CEP profit is a substantive question that

respondents failed to address in their case brief or otherwise prior to

issuance of these final results. Consequently, petitioners argue that

it would be inappropriate for the Department to consider as a

ministerial error the substantive merits of the CEP profit calculation.

After a review of respondents' allegations, we agree with

respondents and have corrected these errors for the amended final

results. For the computer code we used to correct these ministerial

errors, please see the Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S.

LaRussa dated May 5, 1997 (``Memorandum''), a public version of which

is in the file in Central Records, Room B-099 of the Department of

Commerce building, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington,

DC. We disagree with petitioners that respondents' error allegation

regarding the calculation of CEP profit is not a ministerial error. The

Department includes foreign indirect expenses in total expenses for

purposes of

[[Page 25916]]

calculating CEP profit and did not do so in this case. Consequently, we

have corrected it for the amended final.

Petitioners also alleged that the Department made several

ministerial errors. First, petitioners alleged that the Department's

programming language for the final results incorrectly revised the

computer language concerning payment dates. Petitioners contend that

the Department's original computer language in the preliminary results

correctly set the date of the final results. However, petitioners

contend that the computer programming revised the methodology used by

the Department despite the statement in the Department's final results

notice that it made no changes to the computer program.

Respondents contend that petitioners are wrong and are confusing

two different issues raised in briefing with respect to the calculation

of U.S. credit expense. Respondents note that the Department disagreed

with respondents' claim that the Department incorrectly set the payment

date for every U.S. sale to the projected final results date and the

Department stated in the final results that it did not change the

computer program (see Comment 1 of Final Results). However, respondents

note that the Department agreed with respondents that the formula used

to calculate U.S. credit expense contained two errors. The Department

corrected the error in the Final Results (see Comment 2 of Final

Results). Consequently, respondents contend that petitioners are

misreading the Department's statement in Comment 1 that it made no

changes to the computer program to correct the error in the credit

calculation. Respondents contend that the Department made the necessary

corrections for the final results and there are no ministerial errors

to correct.

We agree with respondents. The Department stated in Comment 1 of

the final results that it disagreed with respondents' argument that we

incorrectly set the payment date for all sales to the date of the final

results. Consequently, for that comment, we stated we did not change

the computer program. However, we agreed with respondents in Comment 2

of the final results that the Department incorrectly calculated

respondents' credit expense. Consequently, we changed the computer

coding in the margin calculation program to reflect the corrected

credit expense. Since the calculation of credit expense was corrected

for the final results, there is no ministerial error.

Second, petitioners also contend that the Department failed to

exclude home market sales that failed the arm's length test from the CV

profit calculation. Respondents did not submit a rebuttal argument

concerning this issue. We agree with petitioners that this is a

clerical error and have corrected the error for the amended final

results.

Third, petitioners assert that the Department failed to adjust COM

for CV for remelting services. Respondents did not object to

petitioners' ministerial allegations but argued that certain computer

coding suggested by petitioners was incorrect. We agree that this is a

clerical error and have corrected the error for the amended final

results using respondents' computer code. Petitioners also requested

that the Department correct a certain typographical error by inserting

a comma between two control numbers. We also agree that this is a

clerical error and have corrected the error for the amended final

results.

Fourth, petitioners allege that the Department erroneously deducted

the same indirect home market expenses from normal value twice, once in

the form of a commission offset and then again in the form of a CEP

offset for sales where commissions were paid on respondents' CEP sales,

but no commissions were paid for the comparison home market sales.

Respondents contend that this is a methodological issue and not a

ministerial error. Respondents note that petitioners failed to address

this matter in their case brief or otherwise prior to issuance of the

final results. Furthermore, respondents note that petitioners stated in

their rebuttal comments for the amended final that a substantive

question embodied in the preliminary results but not raised in briefing

is not a ministerial error following the final results. Respondents

state that applying petitioners' own principle, consideration of this

methodological matter is untimely and the Department should dismiss

petitioners' comment.

We agree with petitioners that the Department's computer program

incorrectly double deducted the same indirect home market expenses from

normal value twice. It was not the Department's intention to deduct

these expenses twice. Consequently, we consider this to be a

ministerial error and have corrected it for the amended final.

Last, petitioners contend that the Department should deduct

inventory carrying costs incurred after exportation in calculating CEP.

Petitioners note that the Department stated in the final results that

it agreed with petitioners that inventory carrying costs incurred after

import relate to respondents' economic activity in the United States

and are properly deducted as indirect selling expenses. Consequently,

petitioners argue that if the Department agreed with petitioners'

argument regarding the deduction of post-exportation inventory carrying

costs, the Department's failure to deduct such expenses constitutes a

ministerial error.

Respondents note that in the final results, the Department

disagreed with petitioners, stating that ``the Department does not

deduct indirect expenses incurred in selling to the affiliated U.S.

importer under section 772(d) of the Act.'' Respondents assert that

petitioners misconstrued the Department's position in the final

results. Respondents contend that inventory carrying costs incurred

from the date of exportation from France to the date the affiliate MAC

received the subject merchandise in the United States relate to selling

to MAC (respondents' U.S. affiliate), not to selling to an unaffiliated

U.S. customer. Consequently, respondents argue that these expenses were

properly not deducted in the calculation of CEP and there is no

ministerial error to correct.

We agree with respondents. The inventory carrying costs relate to

selling to MAC respondents' U.S. subsidiary, and not to the final

unaffiliated customer. Thus these costs should not be deducted from

CEP.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of our review and the correction of the ministerial

errors described above, we have determined that the following margins

exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

Imphy/Ugine-Savoie........................ 1/1/95-12/31/95 7.29

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

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

[[Page 25917]]

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 Sec. 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: May 5, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-12389 Filed 5-9-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P