federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6194 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Noticesto be used in valuing the steel thatcomprises the raw materials factor ofproduction. Chin Jun argues thatcategory 7228.30.19, which theDepartment used to value steel used tomanufacture cups and cones, contains awide variety of steel products and acorrespondingly wide range of prices.Chin Jun points out that the averageprice per metric ton of steel containedin this category ranges from $610 to$3,087. Chin Jun further argues that, asbearing-quality steel is availablethroughout the world at prices less than$800 per metric ton, the Departmentshould, if it uses category 7228.30.19 tovalue hot-rolled alloy steel bar, excludesteel prices in excess of $1,000 permetric ton as being not reflective of theprice of bearing-quality steel.Shanghai states that, although theIndian Trade Classification system isderived from the internationalharmonized schedules, it does notentirely duplicate the harmonizedschedules. Nevertheless, Shanghaicontends, the eight-digit subdivisions ofthe International Trade Commission(ITC) are described with sufficientlyfamiliar terminology to determinewhich subdivisions are likely to includesteel similar to or the same as the steelused in the production of cups andcones. Shanghai asserts that theDepartment should select an eight-digitsubdivision covering imports of types ofsteel which most closely match thequalities of the steel used to produce theproduct at issue, citing Sigma Corp. v.United States, CIT, No. 91–02–00154,Slip Op. 93–230, December 8, 1993 (15ITRD 2500), and Tehnoimportexport v.United States, 16 CIT 13, 783 F. Supp.1401 (1992). Furthermore, given the lackof a specific harmonization of the IndianTrade Classification System at the eightdigitsubdivision level, Chin Jun andShanghai both argue that theDepartment should, as it has previously,test the reliability of whicheversubdivision it chooses by comparing thevalues within that subdivision withworld steel prices from other availableinformation (citing Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides withRollers from the People’s Republic ofChina (Drawer Slides), 60 FR 54472,54475 (October 24, 1995), and HeavyForged Hand Tools From the People’sRepublic of China (Hand Tools) 60 FR49251, 49254 (September 22, 1995), asexamples). Shanghai claims that theaberrationally high values of the steelincluded in category 7228.30.19, incomparison with world steel prices onthe record in this review, compel theconclusion that it should not be used.Shanghai submits that categories7227.90.30 and 7228.30.01 moreaccurately reflect the steel used tomanufacture cups and cones than doesthe residual category, 7228.30.19, whichthe Department used. Shanghai statesthat there is a category reported under7227.90, ‘‘Other Hot-Rolled Bars & Rodsof Other Alloy Steel in IrregularlyWound Coils,’’ which is consistent withU.S. HTS 7227.90.30 which containsball-bearing-grade steel.Shanghai suggests that the fact that aneight-digit category comparable to theU.S. HTS listing for ball-bearing-qualitysteel bars does not exist in the Indianimport statistics probably reflects theabsence of imports of that type of steelinto India. Therefore, Shanghai argues,it would be unreasonable and arbitraryto assume ball-bearing-grade steel entersunder the residual category 7228.30.19.Instead, Shanghai says that other eightdigitsubdivisions among the Indianimport statistics do describe types ofsteel closely correlated to the type ofsteel used to produce bearings.Shanghai suggests that theDepartment use category 7227.90.11,speculating that the type of ball-bearingsteel used by Chinese producers mightenter India under this category number.Differences between steel included inthis category and the steel used toproduce TRBs is, Shanghai states,insignificant. Alternatively, Shanghaisuggests use of category 7228.30.01,‘‘Bright Bars of Alloy Tool Steel,’’ notingthat ball bearing steel is a ‘‘tool’’ steelas defined by its carbon content.Shanghai claims that this category andU.S. HTS category 7228.30.20.001,‘‘Other Bars and Rods of Other AlloySteel * * * *, Not Further Workedthan Hot-Rolled * * * of Ball BearingSteel,’’ share the particularcharacteristics of the type of steel usedto manufacture cups and cones.Shanghai adds that, notwithstandinguse of the term ‘‘bright,’’ category7228.30.01 is, by definition, not furtherworked than hot-rolled, hot-drawn orextruded steel and, therefore, is notfurther worked with respect to any of anumber of surface treatments, i.e.,polishing and burnishing, lacquering,enameling, painting, varnishing, etc.Accordingly, Shanghai concludes thatthe ‘‘bright steel’’ cannot be steel witha finish inappropriate for bearingmanufacture. In contrast to these twocategories, Shanghai states, the residualcategory contains unknown types ofsteel.Shanghai states that the values of steelcovered by category 7228.30.19 areaberrationally high and should not beused. Shanghai explains that theDepartment’s use of import statistics assurrogate information has been affirmedin the past only where the importcategories accurately reflect the materialused to produce the product at issueand argues that the clearly greater costof the steel covered by category7228.30.19 indicates that the types ofsteel in this category are notrepresentative of bearing-grade steel.Thus, Shanghai claims, the steel valuesincluded in category 7228.30.19 areclearly aberrational, rendering theDepartment’s surrogate steel costs forcups and cones an inaccuraterepresentation of the actual experienceof Chinese producers. Because of thelack of specific harmonization of theIndian Trade Classification system atthe eight-digit subdivision levels,Shanghai urges the Department to weighthe reliability of whichever subdivisionit proposes to use by comparing thevalues within that subdivision withother available information on worldsteel prices. Citing Drawer Slides,Shanghai claims that in the past theDepartment has tested the reliability ofIndian import values by comparingthem with other record data. In HandTools, Shanghai quotes the Departmentas saying, ‘‘where we have other sourcesof market value such as Indonesianimport statistics or U.S. importstatistics, we have compared the Indianimport statistics to these sources ofmarket value to determine whether theIndian import values are aberrational,i.e., too high or too low’’ (at 49251).Accordingly, Shanghai suggests that theDepartment compare the valuesreported in category 7228.30.19 with thesubstantial evidence of relevant worldsteel prices already in the record of thisadministrative review. The high valuesin category 722.30.19 should not beused, respondent argues, because theyare aberrational; the import valuesreported in either category 7227.90.11 orcategory 7228.30.01 are more consistentwith world steel prices and should beused instead.Chin Jun also claims that theDepartment’s calculation of the value ofcategory 7228.30.19 contains apparentclerical errors, adding that, aside fromthe apparent clerical errors, the price forsaid category far exceeds the value ofsteel used to produce TRBs. With regardto the calculation, Chin Jun argues thatthe Department apparently doublecountedby adding the subtotal forcategory 7228.30.19 with the total of allsteel under heading 7228.30. Regardingits second point, Chin Jun argues thatthe Department has previouslyconcluded that it must comparesurrogate steel prices with world pricesin order to determine if the proposedsurrogate values are aberrational (citingHand Tools). Chin Jun claims that a