Antidumping: Stainless steel wire rods from France,
[Federal Register: August 28, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 45998-46000]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28au98-51]
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'') filedallegations of clerical errors. Respondents submitted rebuttal comments on June 15, 1998. The allegations and rebuttal comments were filedin 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. 98-23235Filed8-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
