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: August 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Stephen Jacques, 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) 482-1391, 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 June 3, 1998, 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

(63 FR 30185). 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, 1996, through December

31, 1996.

On June 5, 1998, we received a submission from Imphy, S.A. and

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

Alloys Corp. and Techalloy Company (collectively ``respondents'')

alleging clerical errors in the final results of this third

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel wire rods from France. On June 8, 1998, 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, and

AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively ``petitioners'') filed allegations of

clerical errors. Respondents submitted rebuttal comments on June 15,

1998. The allegations and rebuttal comments were filed in a timely

fashion.

[[Page 45999]]

Comment 1: Respondents allege that the Department committed one

ministerial error in the final results of administrative review.

Respondents stated that the Department determined in its final results

that it agreed with petitioners and corrected its preliminary results

model match program, which had incorrectly excluded certain U.S. sales

that entered the United States outside the POR. Respondents note that

they did not disagree with petitioners' argument concerning the model

match program. However, respondents argue that the Department's

correction created a new error by excluding from the model match

program certain sales that entered during the POR but were sold before

the POR. Petitioners did not respond to respondents' claim.

Department's Position: After a review of respondents' allegations,

we agree with respondents and have corrected our model match program to

include the missing sales in the model match program. For the computer

code we used to correct this ministerial error, please see the

Memorandum from Robert A. Bolling to Edward Yang dated July 1, 1998

(``Amended Final Calculation Memorandum''), a public version of which

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

of Commerce building, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Comment 2: Petitioners allege that the Department made several

ministerial errors. First, petitioners state that, in the final

results, the Department attempted to correct calculation errors

concerning home market credit expenses with missing shipment and

payment dates. Petitioners argue that the Department's revised

programming language failed to correct these errors in the

recalculation of home market credit. Petitioners note that the

Department's recalculation resulted in abnormally high credit expenses

and negative net home market prices when home market sales did not have

a payment date but did have a shipment date. Petitioners argue that the

inclusion of home market sales with negative net prices understated

normal value that was compared to U.S. prices and distorted the final

margin analysis. Petitioners argue that the Department should revise

its model match program to correct these errors. Petitioners propose

that the Department rely on information reported by the respondents for

its home market credit expenses to avoid further confusion related to

recalculation of these home market credit expenses. Respondents stated

that they do not object to the correction proposed by petitioners.

Second, petitioners state that the Department intended to

recalculate U.S. credit expenses for sales with missing payment dates.

Petitioners argue that the Department's computer program did not

include language to recalculate these credit expenses for certain CEP

and CEP/FM sales through Techalloy. Respondents state that they do not

object to the correction proposed by petitioners.

Lastly, petitioners state that the Department calculated total

selling expenses for respondents' CEP and CEP/FM sales (CEPSELL), and

then applied the CEP profit ratio (CEPRATIO) to CEPSELL to obtain the

amount of CEP profit that is deducted from a respondent's reported U.S.

gross unit price. Petitioners argue that under the Department's normal

practice, the variable CEPSELL should include all selling expenses,

direct or indirect, incurred for CEP sales. Petitioners contend that

the Department's final margin calculation program incorrectly removed

the variable INDEXUS that contained respondents' reported indirect

selling expenses incurred in the United States for their CEP and CEP/FM

sales from the calculation of CEPSELL. Finally, petitioners argue that

the removal of these indirect selling expenses from CEPSELL understated

respondents' reported total selling expenses incurred for their U.S.

CEP and CEP/FM sales which consequently understated the amount of CEP

profit. Respondents state that they do not object to the correction

proposed by petitioners.

Department's Position: With respect to home market credit expenses,

we disagree with petitioners. In the preliminary results, we attempted

to calculate home market credit expenses for sales with missing

shipment and payment dates. Respondents commented that this calculation

was erroneous because of two programming errors in the calculation. In

the final results, we corrected these errors through programming

language different from that suggested by respondents. Petitioners

allege that these corrections are erroneous because they result in

abnormally high credit expenses for some sales. Petitioners, however,

have failed to point to any specific programming language which is in

error, and the mere allegation that certain calculated expenses are too

high is insufficient for finding a ministerial error. For a complete

explanation, please see the Amended Final Calculation Memorandum.

With respect to U.S. credit expenses, we agree with petitioners and

have corrected our margin calculation program to recalculate credit

expenses for certain sales through Techalloy. For the computer code we

used to correct this ministerial error, please see the Amended Final

Calculation Memorandum.

With respect to indirect selling expenses, we agree with

petitioners and have corrected our margin calculation program to

include the variable INDEXUS in the calculation of CEPSELL for CEP and

CEP/FM sales. For the computer code we used to correct this ministerial

error, please see the Amended Final Calculation Memorandum.

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...................... 1/1/96-12/31/96 7.10

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between United States price and normal value may vary from

the percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs Service. The amended final results

of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review. For duty

assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate

by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to

each importer and dividing this amount by the total value of subject

merchandise entered during the POR for each importer.

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

[[Page 46000]]

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: August 20, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-23235 Filed 8-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P