[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39354-39357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14375]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-423-808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium; Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium in response to timely requests by
respondent, ALZ, N.V. (ALZ) and its affiliated U.S. importer
TrefilARBED, Inc. and by petitioners. This review covers shipments of
this merchandise to the United States during the period of May 1, 2000
through April 30, 2001. We have preliminarily determined that U.S.
sales have been made below normal value (NV). See ``Preliminary Results
of Review'' section below for the company-specific rate. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct
the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties based
on the difference between constructed export price (CEP) and NV.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon at (202) 482-0162,
Julio Fernandez at (202) 482-0190, or Brett Royce at (202) 482-4106,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute & Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended. In
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).
Background
The Department published an antidumping duty order on SSPC from
Belgium on May 21, 1999 (64 FR 27756). On May 1, 2001, the Department
published in the Federal Register (66 FR 21740) a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of this antidumping duty order. On
May 16, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), respondent ALZ,
N.V. (ALZ) and its affiliated U.S. importer TrefilARBED, Inc.
(TrefilARBED), and the petitioners, Allegheny Ludlum, Corp., AK Steel
Corporation, Butler Armco Independent Union, North American Stainless,
Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, petitioners), timely requested a
review of the antidumping duty order on certain SSPC from Belgium. On
June 19, 2001, we published a notice of initiation of the antidumping
review of SSPC from Belgium. See 66 FR 32934.
Due to complicated issues in this case, on December 17, 2001, the
Department extended to deadline for the preliminary results of this
antidumping duty administrative review until no later than May 31,
2002. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Extension of
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 64950 (December 17, 2001).
Scope of Review
The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate
in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or
without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled
products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in
coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-
rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified
dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope
of these orders are the following: (1) plate not in coils, (2) plate
that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars. In addition, certain
cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also excluded from the
scope of these orders. The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel plate
in coils is defined as that merchandise which meets the physical
characteristics described above that has undergone a cold-reduction
process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 percent or more,
and has been annealed and pickled after this cold reduction process.
The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06,
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56,
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15,
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10,
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10,
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and
cost information provided by ALZ and TrefilARBED. We used standard
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the
manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public
and proprietary versions of the verification reports, which are on file
in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Department
building.
Date of Sale
ALZ reported invoice date as the date of sale. Invoice date is also
the
[[Page 39355]]
Department's presumptive date for date of sale. See section 351.401(i)
of the Department's regulations and Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 1999) (SSPC Final Determination). In
the original investigation, we determined that invoice date was the
proper date of sale in both markets. For purposes of this review, we
also have examined whether invoice date or some other date better
represents the date on which the material terms of sale were
established. The Department has examined sales documentation, including
order confirmations and invoices, provided by ALZ and TrefilARBED for
its home market and U.S. sales, and has preliminarily found that the
material terms of sale are set as of the invoice date in both markets.
Specifically, changes in price and quantity may occur after the initial
order confirmation date, and up to the invoicing date. See Sales and
Cost Verification of ALZ, N.V.: Antidumping Administrative Review on
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, from Julio A. Fernandez,
through Sally C. Gannon, to the File (May 24, 2002), at page 5. See
also Sales Verification of TrefilARBED, Inc.: Antidumping
Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium,
from Julio A. Fernandez and Brett L. Royce, through Sally C. Gannon, to
the File (May 30, 2002), at page 11. As such, pursuant to section
351.401(i) of the Department's regulations, we preliminarily determine
that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for both the home and
U.S. markets in this administrative review because it better reflects
the date upon which the material terms of sale were finally
established.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of SSPC from Belgium to the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared the CEP to the NV for ALZ
as specified in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the
Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared
these to individual U.S. transactions.
Constructed Export Price
We calculated CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act,
because sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser took place after
importation into the United States.
We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for
billing adjustments (adjustment for freight and adjustments for
customer claims), where applicable, and further processing expenses. We
also made deductions for the following movement expenses, where
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act:
foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance (including marine
insurance), international freight (including foreign brokerage), U.S.
inland freight from port to warehouse, U.S. inland insurance, U.S.
brokerage and handling, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight
from warehouse to unaffiliated customer and U.S. Customs duty. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United
States, including direct selling expenses (credit costs), inventory
carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also deducted the
profit allocated to these expenses, in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we
compared the volume of ALZ's home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Based on this comparison,
we determined that the aggregate volume of ALZ's home market sales of
the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of ALZ's U.S. sales. Thus, we determined that ALZ had a viable
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market
sales.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that ALZ had made home market
sales at prices below its cost of production (COP) in this review
because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the cost test
in the original investigation. See SSPC Final Determination. See also
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 56272 (November 7, 2001),
and Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium, from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD
Enforcement III, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated November 7, 2001 (wherein ALZ's margin was based
on total adverse facts available). Therefore, the Department initiated
an investigation to determine whether ALZ made home market sales during
the POR at prices below its COP. Accordingly, we calculated the COP
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for
the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and
administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing costs, in accordance
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
For these preliminary results, we recalculated respondent's
reported COP based on information obtained during verification. See
Memorandum to the File from Julio A. Fernandez through Sally C. Gannon
Regarding Analysis of ALZ, N.V., dated May 31, 2002, for a discussion
of the business proprietary facts underlying this conclusion. We
compared the COP figures to home market sales of the foreign like
product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On
a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices,
less any applicable movement charges and discounts.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended
period of time (i.e., one year), such sales were made in substantial
quantities, and (2) whether such sales were made at prices which
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time
in the normal course of trade.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices
less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in
substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance
with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, because we
compared prices to POR weight-averaged costs, we also determined that
such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost
sales.
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used
constructed value (CV) as the basis for NV when there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the
[[Page 39356]]
comparison market that passed the cost test. We calculated CV, in
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, based on the sum of ALZ's
cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs.
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and
profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by ALZ in connection
with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the
ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For
selling expenses, we used the average of the selling expenses reported
for home market sales that passed the cost test, weighted by the total
quantity of those sales.
We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market
customers. We made deductions for billing adjustments (adjustment when
customer picks up the merchandise), early payment discounts, inland
freight, and inland insurance. In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs and
U.S. credit expenses.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP transaction. The NV
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market.
Further, in identifying levels of trade for export price (EP) and
comparison-market sales (i.e., NV based on either home-market or third-
country prices), we consider the starting prices before any
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2001).
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference involves the performance of different
selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability,
as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-61733 (November 19, 1997).
In this case, ALZ requested that the Department adjust NV to
account for different levels of trade in the home market and the U.S.
market. However, the information on the record does not justify
treating CEP sales and home market sales as sales at different levels
of trade. Because much of the information on LOT is business
proprietary, our analysis is set forth in a Memorandum to the File from
Julio A. Fernandez through Sally C. Gannon Regarding Level of Trade
Analysis for ALZ, N.V. (May 31, 2002) (LOT Analysis Memo) (public
version on file in the Department's CRU). Because we found that the
home market LOT did not differ from the CEP LOT, we preliminarily did
not make a LOT adjustment, or, as requested by respondent, a CEP offset
for sales by ALZ in Belgium which are compared with CEP sales in the
United States.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by
the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A of the Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the
antidumping margin for ALZ, for the period May 1, 2000 through April
30, 2001, to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALZ, N.V................................................ 5.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b),
its calculations to interested parties within 5 days of the date of
public announcement of these results, or if no public announcement,
within 5 days of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of publication in accordance with 19
CFR 351.310(c). Unless otherwise notified by the Department, any
hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the publication of
this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs,
which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed
not later than 35 days after the date of publication. 19 CFR
351.309(d). Unless the due date for the final results is extended, the
Department will publish a notice of final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such comments, not later than 120 days after
the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for ALZ based on entered
values. We will direct Customs to assess this ad valorem rate against
the entered value on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this
review, the Department will issue assessment instructions directly to
Customs.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all
shipments of stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium 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 rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in
the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by
manufacturers or exporters not covered in these reviews but covered in
the original investigation of sales at LTFV or a previous review, the
cash deposit 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 or a previous review, or the original LTFV 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) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the
cash deposit rate shall be 9.86 percent, the ``all others'' rate made
effective by the LTFV investigation. See SSPC Final Determination.
These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate
[[Page 39357]]
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 administrative review and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 31, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-14375 Filed 6-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S