Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-401-040]

Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden: 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.

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

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of the review of the antidumping duty

finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden. The review covers two

manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States

and the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Linda Ludwig,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

[[Page 1825]]

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475/3833.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the

Department's regulations are to Part 353 of 19 CFR (1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of the Treasury published an antidumping finding on

stainless steel plate from Sweden on June 8, 1973 (38 FR 15079). On

July 8, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review of this

antidumping finding (62 FR 36495). Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to

complete the review within the statutory 365 days. On August 27, 1997,

the Department extended the time limits for these final results in this

case: See Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden: Extension of Time Limit

for Antidumping Administrative Review (62 FR 45397). The Department has

now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of stainless steel

plate which is commonly used in scientific and industrial equipment

because of its resistance to staining, rusting and pitting. Stainless

steel plate is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7219.11.00.00, 7219.12.00.05,

7209.12.00.15, 7219.12.00.45, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70,

7219.12.00.80, 7219.21.00.05, 7219.21.00.50, 7219.22.00.05,

7219.23.00.10, 7219.22.00.30, 7219.22.00.60, 7219.31.00.10,

7219.31.00.50, 7220.11.00.00, 7222.30.00.00, and 7228.40.00.00.

Although the subheading is provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the merchandise under

investigation is dispositive.

On July 11, 1995, the Department determined that Stavax ESR

(Stavax), UHB Ramax (Ramax), and UHB 904L (904L) when flat-rolled are

within the scope of antidumping finding.

On November 3, 1995, the Department determined that stainless steel

plate products Stavax, Ramax, and 904L when forged, are within the

scope of the antidumping finding.

On December 30, 1997 the Department determined that merchandise

rolled into hot bands in Sweden from British slabs is subject to the

finding.

The review covers the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996. The

Department has now completed this review in accordance with section 751

of the Act, as amended.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, from August 10

through August 15, 1997, we verified information submitted by Avesta.

We used standard verification procedures including on-site inspection

of respondent's production facilities and examination of relevant sales

and financial records. The results of this verification are outlined in

the public version of the verification report dated September 8, 1997.

On August 11, 1997, Avesta submitted corrections regarding its

claims for the following home market charges: inland freight, warranty

expenses, indirect selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs. We

verified Avesta's revised claim for these charges, and have included

the verified amount for these charges in these final results.

During the verification, we determined that more similar matches

existed in the home market for three U.S. models. We revised Avesta's

April 24, 1997 concordance to reflect those more similar matches, and

have adjusted our calculations accordingly.

Additionally, based upon verified data provided by Avesta, we

converted three sales denominated in Finnish Marks into Swedish Kronor

before including those sales in our calculation of normal value.

We determined during the verification that Avesta could not

substantiate, and we could not verify the inland freight charges

reported by its hot rolled products (HRP) division. Section 776(a)(2)

of the Act provides that ``if an interested party or any other person *

* * provides such information but the information cannot be verified as

provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject

to section 782(d) use the facts otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this title.''

Because Avesta could not substantiate the home market inland

freight incurred on its HRP sales, we calculated this adjustment based

upon facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776. (See memo

concerning revision to verification report dated December 9, 1996 and

verification report at 12). As facts available, we used in these final

results the average inland freight charges incurred by the HRP division

on the pre-selected and surprise sales examined during the

verification. (See Avesta Final Results Analysis Memorandum of January

5, 1998.)

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results

of this administrative review. We received timely comments from

Uddeholm and Avesta. We received timely rebuttal comments from the

petitioners.

Comment 1

Uddeholm and Avesta note that in its preliminary calculations, the

Department incorrectly matched U.S. sales to non-contemporaneous home

market sales. Uddeholm and Avesta contend that in the final results,

the Department should match U.S. sales with contemporaneous home market

sales occurring within the 90/60 day window.

Department's Position

We agree with Avesta and Uddeholm. We have corrected this

programming error in our final results, and matched U.S. sales with

contemporaneous home market sales occurring within the 90/60 day

window.

Comment 2

Uddeholm contends that the Department incorrectly calculated the

CEP offset in its preliminary results. Uddeholm contends that the

Department should base its calculation of the CEP offset on indirect

selling expenses incurred during the month of the contemporaneous home

market sale.

Department's Response

We agree with Uddeholm. In these final results we have corrected

this error, and based our calculation of the CEP offset on indirect

selling expenses incurred during the month of the contemporaneous home

market sale.

Comment 3

Uddeholm argues that the Department should make no distinction in

its model-match program for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax

and Ramax. Uddeholm contends that both versions of these products are

identical.

Uddeholm asserts that the Department concluded in its October 10,

1997 scope determination that the method of manufacture (forging or

flat-rolling) did

[[Page 1826]]

not result in physical differences in the product. Uddeholm, therefore,

contends that the Department should not differentiate between forged

and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax in its margin

calculations.

Petitioners note that the Department based its preliminary

calculations on the classifications and product codes provided by

Uddeholm. Petitioners additionally assert that the Department did not

find in its October 10, 1997 scope redetermination on remand that

forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax are

``indistinguishable on any other basis'' such as price or cost of

manufacture.

Department's Response

We disagree with Uddeholm, and agree with petitioners. In its

October 26, 1996 questionnaire response. Uddeholm provided separate

product codes for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax.

We based our model match selections upon the product codes provided by

Uddeholm.

The proper method for making sales comparisons is not addressed in

our October 10, 1997 scope determination. In that scope

redetermination, we applied the ``totality of circumstances'' test

outlined in United States v. Carborundum Co (Carborundum) 536 F. 2d

373.337 (C.C.P.A.) 1976). In making this scope redetermination, we

adhered to the instructions of the Court of International Trade which

was to limit the analysis to record evidence before the Treasury

Department in 1976. In considering that 1976 record evidence, we noted

that Uddeholm made ``no distinction between Stavax and Ramax when flat-

rolled, and Stavax and Ramax when forced * * *.''

While we determined in our October 10, 1997 scope redetermination

that both forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax are

subject to the scope of the finding, it does not follow from that

analysis that these two versions of the product are identical to each

other, or that no price differences exist between forged and flat-

rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax. Because Uddeholm listed separate

product codes for forged and flat-rolled versions of Stavax and Ramax,

and because there is no evidence in the record indicating that forged

and flat-rolled versions of the product are identical within the

meaning of section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we have continued in

these final results to make separate comparisons for forged and flat-

rolled versions of these products.

Comment 4

Avesta contends that the Department should make a deduction from

the home market selling price for pre-sale warehousing expenses.

Department's Position

We agree. In these final results we have made an adjustment for

pre-sale warehousing expenses incurred after the merchandise left the

original place of shipment.

Comment 5

Avesta contends that the Department should recalculate the CEP

profit ratio by applying the CEP ratio only to U.S. selling expenses

related to individual U.S. sales transactions. Avesta contends that

discounts, rebates and movement charges should be excluded from this

calculation because they are not ``selling expenses'' as the Department

defines and interprets the term for purposes of determining the CEP

profit ratio.

Department's Position

We agree with Avesta. Consistent with our normal practice, we have

not applied the CEP ratio to discounts, rebates, and movement charges.

Comment 6

Avesta contends that in the final results, the Department

occasionally used an incorrect amount for difmer. Avesta contends that

this error arose because the Department sometimes matched the U.S.

model to a different home market model and month than that listed in

the Department's product concordance. Avesta argues that in its final

results, the Department should either (1) utilize a revised concordance

submitted by Avesta in its affirmative comments (this concordance

incorporates the matching scheme used by the Department in its

preliminary results) or (2) recalculate difmer by utilizing the

variable cost of manufacture information provided on Avesta's home

market and U.S. sales listing.

Petitioners contend that Avesta has already submitted several

product concordances some of which petitioners have found to be

defective. Petitioners also observe that Avesta submitted this revised

concordance after the deadline for submitting new information.

Accordingly, petitioners argue that the Department should either

disregard Avesta's recalculation of difmer, or ``make its own

calculations rather than relying on the data submitted out of time by

Avesta.''

Department's Position

In these final results, we have recalculated difmer to correspond

with the model match selections made in our margin calculations. We

based our calculation of difmer upon the verified variable cost of

manufacture data provided by Avesta in its home market and U.S. sales

listings. Finally, because the concordance provided by Avesta in its

affirmative comments summarizes cost information previously analyzed

and verified by the Department, we do not consider that concordance to

be new information. The Department's practice is to reject untimely

filings to the extent they contain new information. See Sebacic Acid

from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674, December 15, 1997 (where the

Department rejected by striking from the record certain untimely new

information contained in a party's case brief). We, thus, have

maintained that concordance on the record of this proceeding.

Final Results of Review

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

exist for the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996:

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

Margin

Company (percent)

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

Avesta...................................................... 29.36

Uddeholm.................................................... 2.95

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

The U.S. Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. Individual differences between U.S. price and

normal value may vary from the percentages stated above. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of stainless steel plate from Sweden entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by

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

firms will be the rate established in the final results of

administrative review, (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or

exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-

than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash

deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter

received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

[[Page 1827]]

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

but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established

for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these

reviews, or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor

the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews or

the original fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be

4.46%.

We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on a unit

value per pound basis. To calculate the per pound unit value for

assessment, we summed the margins on U.S. sales with positive margins,

and then divided this sum by the entered pounds of all U.S. sales.

This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during these review periods. 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). 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

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: January 5, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-611 Filed 1-9-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M