Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]

Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review: Stainless Steel Bar from India.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Yeske or Zak Smith, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20230; telephone (202) 482-0189 or 482-1279, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to those

published in the Code of Federal Regulations, April 1997, as amended by

the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11,

1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

On March 7, 1997, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')

published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India (61 FR 54774).

The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise

for the period August 4, 1994 through January 31, 1996. The

manufacturer/exporter is Isibars Limited (``Isibars'' or

``respondent''). The Department gave interested parties an opportunity

to comment on our preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have found no basis to modify our preliminary

results. Therefore, we have adopted the preliminary results of this

review as the final results.

On May 1 and May 28, 1997, Isibars submitted untimely arguments and

new factual information. We rejected these submissions on May 1, 1997,

and June 4, 1997, respectively. On May 20, 1997, and June 9, 1997,

respondent filed its objection to the Department's rejection of its

submissions.

Scope of the Review

For purposes of this administrative review, the term ``stainless

steel bar'' means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that

have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or

otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross

section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of

circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons,

octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-

finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight

lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and

cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs,

grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless

steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e.,

cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have

a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or

more in thickness have a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at

least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils,

of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do

not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The stainless steel bar subject to this administrative review is

currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.0005, 7222.11.0050,

7222.19.0005, 7222.19.0050, 7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075,

and 7222.30.0000 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 order is dispositive.

Interested Party Comments

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, we gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment. We received written comments from petitioners

(Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible

Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp.,

Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels Corp., Talley Metals

Technology, Inc. and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC))

and the respondent.

Comment 1: Petitioners claim the Department used the wrong date of

sale for the reported U.S. sales. They believe the material terms of

sale changed significantly enough to warrant using the invoice date,

instead of the purchase order date, as the date of sale. Petitioners

allege that because the quantity shipped was different than the

quantity ordered, the terms of sale changed and thus the invoice date

should be viewed as the date of sale. According to petitioners, this

change in quantity falls outside the delivery

[[Page 37031]]

allowance stipulated in the purchase order.

Isibars disagrees with petitioners' interpretation of the purchase

order. Isibars asserts that this sale adhered to the essential terms

set by the purchase order. Isibars says that price and quantity were

set with the purchase order, the quantity ordered was delivered within

the delivery allowance range and the customer paid for the order.

Therefore, Isibars argues that the date of sale should be based on the

purchase order date.

DOC Position: We agree with respondent. We have no basis for

rejecting Isibars' characterization of this transaction, and we are

using the purchase order date as the date of sale. The Department

instructed Isibars to report date of sale as when the basic terms of

sale are set. In this instance, the purchase order fulfills that

criterion. We found no evidence in the course of this review suggesting

that the essential terms of sale changed between the purchase order

date and delivery. While the quantity specified in the purchase order

differed from the quantity delivered to the customer, this variance was

permitted in the terms of the purchase order. For further discussion of

the Department's position, see the Memorandum from Team to Richard

Moreland dated June 26, 1997.

Comment 2: Based on their claim that the appropriate date of sale

is invoice date, petitioners argue that the Department did not use

contemporaneous sales in the home market to calculate normal value. If

the Department agrees that the date of sale should be based on the

invoice date, the Department must use ``facts available'' for

determining the extent of dumping because the invoice date falls

outside the period for the information provided by respondent about the

comparison market.

DOC Position: As discussed in response to Comment 1, above, we have

determined that the purchase order date is the appropriate date of

sale. Therefore, there is no need to resort to facts available.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we determine that the following

weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 1, 1994

through January 1, 1996:

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

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

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

Isibars........................................................ 0.00

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

The results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review and

for future deposits of estimated duties for the manufacturer/exporter

subject to this review. The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be that established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for companies not covered in this review,

but covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-value

investigation, 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, a prior review, or the original

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

the most recent rate established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a

firm covered in this or any previous review or the original

investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate of

12.45 percent established in the final determination of sales at less

than fair value. (59 FR 66915, December 28, 1994).

These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also 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 orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification

of the 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)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and

19 CFR 353.22(h), and this notice is published in accordance with

section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: July 2, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-18113 Filed 7-9-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P