Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011

AGENCY:

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

SUMMARY:

On November 8, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Mexico. The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011, and the review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Deacero S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA, Inc. (collectively, Deacero).

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. The final results, consequently, differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”

DATES:

Effective Date: May 14, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia M. Tran or Eric B. Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1503 or (202) 482-6071, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 8, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of the antidumping duty administrative review of wire rod from Mexico. We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. On December 10, 2012, the Department received case briefs from Deacero S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA, Inc. (collectively, Deacero) and Nucor Corporation (Nucor). On December 17, 2012, we received rebuttal briefs from ArcelorMittal USA LLC and Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (collectively, ArcelorMittal), Nucor, and Deacero. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Period of Review

The POR covered by this review is October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011.

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to this order is carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059. Although the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002), remains dispositive.

On October 1, 2012, the Department published Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order. The Department found that shipments of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm produced in Mexico and exported to the United States by Deacero constitute merchandise altered in form or appearance in such minor respects that it should be included within the scope of the order on wire rod from Mexico.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in Appendix 1 to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico; 2010-2011, dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum)”, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have corrected a programming error in the weighted-average dumping margin calculation. A detailed discussion of the corrections made is included in the final analysis memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice and is on file electronically via IA ACCESS and in the CRU.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we determine that the following margin exists for the period October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011:

Assessment Rate

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

For assessment purposes, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

We calculated such rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. If an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent) or the exporter has a weighted-average dumping margin that is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer's entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Deacero will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, 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 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 20.11 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or 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.

Disclosure

We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Appendix I

List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Universe of Sales for Assessment Rate and Cash Deposit Rate

Comment 2: Universe of Sales—Entry Date vs. Sale Date

Comment 3: Establishing De Minimis Guidelines for “Sufficient Sales” or “Meaningful Difference”

Comment 4: Whether to Automatically Apply the Average-to-Transaction Methodology to the Final Results

Comment 5: Whether Nucor's Argument in Case Briefs Qualifies as New Information

Comment 6: Whether the Department Erred in Calculating Inventory Carrying Cost