Notice of Final Results of the Tenth Administrative Review and New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 12443-12446 [E5-1065]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 48 / Monday, March 14, 2005 / Notices
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
the Denied Persons of the ownership,
possession, or control of any item
subject to the EAR that has been or will
be exported from the United States,
including financing or other support
activities related to a transaction
whereby the Denied Persons acquires or
attempts to acquire such ownership,
possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or
to facilitate the acquisition or attempted
acquisition from the Denied Persons of
any item subject to the EAR that has
been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Persons
order in the United States any item
subject to the EAR with knowledge or
reason to know that the item will be, or
is intended to be, exported from the
United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service
any item subject to the EAR that has
been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Persons, or service any item, of
whatever origin, that is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Persons if such service involves the use
of any item subject to the EAR that has
been or will be exported from the
United States. For purposes of this
paragraph, servicing means installation,
maintenance, repair, modification or
testing.
Third, that, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
section 766.23 of the EAR, any other
person, firm, corporation, or business
organization related to any of the
Respondents by affiliation, ownership,
control, or position of responsibility in
the conduct of trade or related services
may also be made subject to the
provisions of this Order.
Fourth, that this Order does not
prohibit any export, reexport, or other
transaction subject to the EAR where the
only items involved that are subject to
the EAR are the foreign-produced direct
product of U.S.-origin technology.
Fifth, that in accordance with the
provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the
EAR, the Respondents may, at any time,
appeal this Order by filing a full written
statement in support of the appeal with
the Office of the Administrative Law
Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing
Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202–4022.
Sixth, that in accordance with the
provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the
EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this
Order by filing a written request not
later than 20 days before the expiration
date. The Respondents may oppose a
request to renew this Order by filing a
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:31 Mar 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
written submission with the Assistant
Secretary for Export Enforcement,
which must be received not later than
seven days before the expiration date of
the Order.
Seventh, that a copy of this Order
shall be served on the Respondents and
shall be published in the Federal
Register.
Eighth, that this Order is effective
upon publication in the Federal
Register and shall remain in effect for
180 days.
Entered this 8th day of March, 2005.
Wendy L. Wysong,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 05–4877 Filed 3–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–351–832]
Notice of Extension of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod From Brazil
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Constance Handley or David Neubacher,
at (202) 482–0631 or (202) 482–5823,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
AGENCY:
Statutory Time Limits
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires
the Department to issue (1) the
preliminary results of a review within
245 days after the last day of the month
in which occurs the anniversary of the
date of publication of an order or
finding for which a review is requested,
and (2) the final results within 120 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results are published. However, if it is
not practicable to complete the review
within that time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend the time limit for
the preliminary results to a maximum of
365 days and the final results to a
maximum of 180 days (or 300 days if
the Department does not extend the
time limit for the preliminary results)
from the date of the publication of the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12443
preliminary results. See also 19 CFR
351.213(h)(2).
Extension of Final Results of Reviews
We determine that it is not practicable
to complete the final results of this
review within the original time limits.
Due to the complexity of issues present
in this administrative review, such as
the issues of affiliation and adverse facts
available, the Department needs more
time to address these items and evaluate
the issues more thoroughly. The
Department also needs more time to
address issues raised in the formal
scope inquiry that was initiated in
conjunction with the administrative
review on the exclusion of Grade 1080
Tire Cord Quality Wire Rod and Tire
Bead Quality Wire Rod. Therefore, we
are extending the deadline for the final
results of the above-referenced review
by 60 days. This 60-day extension of the
final results falls on Saturday, May 7,
2005; therefore, the final results will be
issued no later than the first business
day thereafter, Monday, May 9, 2005.
This extension is in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Dated: March 8, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–1066 Filed 3–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–580–816)
Notice of Final Results of the Tenth
Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Corrosion–
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 7, 2004, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the antidumping duty
administrative review and antidumping
duty new shipper review for certain
corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat
products (CORE) from the Republic of
Korea (Preliminary Results). This review
covers four manufacturers and exporters
of the subject merchandise: Union Steel
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union);
Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd.
(POSCO), Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd.
(POCOS), and Pohang Steel Industries
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
12444
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 48 / Monday, March 14, 2005 / Notices
Co., Ltd. (PSI) (collectively, POSCO);
Dongbu Steel Corporation, Ltd.
(Dongbu); and Dongshin Special Steel
Co., Ltd. (Dongshin).1 The period of
review (POR) is August 1, 2002, through
July 31, 2003. In response to a request
from Hyundai Hysco (HYSCO), the
Department is also conducting a new
shipper review. The POR for the new
shipper review is also August 1, 2002,
through July 31, 2003.
As a result of our analysis of the
comments received, these final results
differ from the preliminary results. For
our final results, we have found that
during the POR POSCO sold subject
merchandise at less than normal value
(NV). We have also found that Union,
Dongbu, and HYSCO did not make sales
of the subject merchandise at less than
NV (i.e., they have ‘‘zero’’ or de minimis
dumping margins). Regarding Dongshin,
because it failed to respond to the
Department’s questionnaire, we
preliminarily determined to resort to
adverse facts available and assigned to
Dongshin the all others rate in effect for
this order (17.70 percent), which is the
highest margin upheld in this
proceeding. See Preliminary Results, 69
FR at 54104. Since the publication of
the Preliminary Results, we have not
received any comments from interested
parties that would warrant
reconsideration of our finding.
Therefore, we have continued to assign
a rate of 17.70 percent to Dongshin. The
final results are listed in the ‘‘Final
Results of Review’’ section below.
Furthermore, we rescinded the request
for review of the antidumping order for
SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) because
neither SeAH nor its affiliates had
exports or sales of subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR. For
more information, see Corrosion–
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Korea: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 25059 (May 5, 2004)
(Partial Rescission of CORE).
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2005.
1 On May 5, 2004, the Department rescinded the
review of SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) because
neither SeAH nor its affiliates had exports or sales
of the subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Korea: Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
25059 (May 5, 2004). On June 22, 2004, the
Department published a correction regarding its
rescission of the review of SeAH. See CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea:
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 34646, in which the
Department addressed a comment from petitioners
that it inadvertently failed to address in the March
4, 2004, rescission notice. Upon review of
petitioners’ additional comment, the Department
determined to continue to rescind the review of
SeAH. Id. at 34647.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:31 Mar 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martin Claessens (Union), Preeti Tolani
(Dongbu), Lyman Armstrong (POSCO),
and Joy Zhang (HYSCO) at (202) 482–
5451, (202) 482–0395, (202) 482–3601,
and (202) 482–1168, respectively; AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
POSCO and Union, and International
Steel Group (ISG) filed a case brief
concerning POSCO, Union, Dongbu, and
HYSCO.2 POSCO and Union, each filed
case briefs on February 11, 2005. On
February 16, 2005, US Steel and ISG
submitted rebuttal briefs concerning
POSCO, and Union, Dongbu, and
HYSCO also submitted rebuttal briefs.
On February 18, 2005, a public hearing
was held at the Department with respect
to POSCO, Union, Dongbu, and HYSCO.
Background
On September 7, 2004, the
Department of Commerce published the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
for Certain Corrosion–resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea, 69 FR 54101 (September 7, 2004).
On October 29, 2004, the Department
published the notice of extension of
final results of the antidumping
administrative review of corrosion–
resistant carbon steel flat products from
Korea, extending the date for these final
results to March 7, 2005. See Corrosion
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Korea: Extension of Time Limits
for the Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review, 69 FR 63140.
From November 8 through November
19, 2004, the Department conducted the
cost verification of POSCO in Pohang,
South Korea, and the sales verification
in Seoul, South Korea. The constructed
export price (CEP) verification was
conducted at POSAM’s headquarters in
Fort Lee, New Jersey, on January 13 and
14, 2005. The Department conducted
the cost and sales verification of Union
in Seoul, South Korea, from November
10 through November 23, 2004, and the
CEP verification was conducted at the
Torrance, California, facility of Dongkuk
International, Inc. on January 25 and 26,
2005. The Department conducted the
cost and sales verification of Dongbu in
Seoul, South Korea, from January 11
through January 21, 2005, and the CEP
verification was conducted at the
Torrance, California, facility of
Dongbu’s subsidiary, Dongbu USA
Incorporated on January 27 and January
28, 2005. From January 10 through
January 21, 2005, the Department
conducted the sales verification of
HYSCO in Seoul, South Korea and the
cost verification at HYSCO’s plant in
Suncheon, South Korea.
Scope of the Order
This order covers cold–rolled (cold–
reduced) carbon steel flat–rolled carbon
steel products, of rectangular shape,
either clad, plated, or coated with
corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc,
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron–based alloys, whether or not
corrugated or painted, varnished or
coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances in addition to
the metallic coating, in coils (whether or
not in successively superimposed
layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or
greater, or in straight lengths which, if
of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters,
are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and
which measures at least 10 times the
thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75
millimeters or more are of a width
which exceeds 150 millimeters and
measures at least twice the thickness, as
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under item numbers
7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060,
7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030,
7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000,
7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030,
7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090,
7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,
7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,
7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000,
7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000,
7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500,
7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560,
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030,
7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in
this order are corrosion–resistant flat–
rolled products of nonrectangular cross–
section where such cross–section is
achieved subsequent to the rolling
process (i.e., products which have been
‘‘worked after rolling’’) for example,
products which have been beveled or
rounded at the edges. Excluded from
this order are flat–rolled steel products
either plated or coated with tin, lead,
chromium, chromium oxides, both tin
and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both
Comments from Interested Parties
We invited parties to comment on our
Preliminary Results. On February 11,
2005, United States Steel Corporation
(US Steel) filed case briefs, concerning
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2 US Steel and ISG are petitioners in this segment
of the proceeding.
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 48 / Monday, March 14, 2005 / Notices
chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin–
free steel’’), whether or not painted,
varnished or coated with plastics or
other nonmetallic substances in
addition to the metallic coating. Also
excluded from this order are clad
products in straight lengths of 0.1875
inch or more in composite thickness
and of a width which exceeds 150
millimeters and measures at least twice
the thickness. Also excluded from this
order are certain clad stainless flat–
rolled products, which are three–
layered corrosion–resistant carbon steel
flat–rolled products less than 4.75
millimeters in composite thickness that
consist of a carbon steel flat–rolled
product clad on both sides with
stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
These HTSUS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions
remain dispositive.
merchandise by that importer. The
Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP
within 15 days of publication of these
final results.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Furthermore, the following deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of CORE from Korea entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of these final results, as provided
by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act): (1) for
companies covered by this review, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate listed
above; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies other than those
covered by this review, the cash deposit
rate will be the company–specific rate
established for the most recent period;
Analysis of Comments Received
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review, a prior review, or the
All issues raised in the case and
investigation, but the producer is, the
rebuttal brief by parties to these
administrative reviews are addressed in cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recent period
the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
for the manufacturer of the subject
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
A list of the issues which parties have
raised, and to which we have responded exporter nor the producer is a firm
covered in this review, a prior review,
in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice or the investigation, the cash deposit
as an Appendix. In addition, a complete rate will be 17.70 percent, the ‘‘All
Others’’ rate established in the less–
version of the Issues and Decision
than-fair–value investigation. These
Memorandum can be accessed directly
deposit requirements shall remain in
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
effect until publication of the final
The paper copy and electronic version
results of the next administrative
of the Decision Memorandum are
review.
identical in content.
This notice also serves as a final
Final Results of Review
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f)
We determine that the following
to file a certificate regarding the
weighted–average margins exist:
reimbursement of antidumping duties
Weighted–Average prior to liquidation of the relevant
Producer/Manufacturer
entries during this review period.
Margin
Failure to comply with this requirement
Dongbu .........................
0.33 de minimis could result in the presumption that
Union ............................
0.36 de minimis reimbursement of antidumping duties
POSCO .........................
2.34
occurred and the subsequent increase in
HYSCO .........................
0.00
Dongshin .......................
17.70% antidumping duties by the amount of
antidumping duties reimbursed.
This notice also is the only reminder
Assessment
to parties subject to administrative
The Department will determine, and
protective order (APO) of their
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
responsibility concerning the return or
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
destruction of proprietary information
appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR
disclosed under APO in accordance
351.212(b). The Department calculated
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written
importer–specific duty assessment rates notification of the return/destruction of
on the basis of the ratio of the total
APO materials or conversion to judicial
antidumping duties calculated for the
protective order is hereby requested.
examined sales to the total entered
Failure to comply with the regulations
value of the examined sales for that
and the terms of an APO is a
importer. Where the assessment rate is
sanctionable violation.
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP
We are issuing and publishing these
to assess duties on all entries of subject
results and notice in accordance with
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:31 Mar 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12445
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: March 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
APPENDIX I
List of Comments and Issues in the
Decision Memorandum
General Issues:
Comment 1: Whether the Department
Should Request Further Information and
Change its Model–Match Methodology
Comment 2: Whether Expenses Incurred
by Parent Companies in Korea for
Activities Performed There Should Be
Treated as Constructed Export Price
(CEP) Selling Expenses
Comment 3: Whether POSCO and
Dongbu Have Provided Sufficient
Evidence to Make a Case for the
Department to Allow CEP Offsets
Comment 4: Whether the Department
Should Modify its Existing Criteria for
Adjusting U.S. Prices for Drawback and
Restate or Disallow Respondents’
Drawback Adjustments
Comment 5: Whether the Department
Should Deduct ‘‘Safeguard Duties’’
When Calculating United States Prices
Company–Specific Issues:
Dongbu
Comment 1: Whether the Department
Should Exclude Certain Low–priced
Home Market Sales from Dongbu’s
Database
Comment 2: Whether the Department
Should Recalculate Dongbu’s Credit
Expenses on Home Market Sales
Denominated in U.S. Dollars
Comment 3: Whether the Department
Should Reallocate Dongbu’s Home
Market Indirect Selling Expenses on the
Basis of Sales
Comment 4: Whether the Department
Should Recalculate Dongbu’s U.S.
Interest Revenue Based on a 365–day
Year
Comment 5: Whether the Department
Should Use Dongbu’s Standard Costs
plus POR Variances or Historical Costs
Adjusted for Inflation in Order to
Calculate the Cost of Production of
Merchandise Sold but Not Produced
During the POR
POSCO
Comment 6: Whether the Department
Should Exclude POSCO’s ‘‘Unusual’’
U.S. Sale from its Margin Calculation
Or, Alternatively, Treat it as Non–prime
Comment 7: Whether the Department
Should Adjust POSCO’s Reported Duty
Drawback
Comment 8: Whether the Department
Should Recalculate POSCO’s Credit
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
12446
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 48 / Monday, March 14, 2005 / Notices
Expense to Take into Account On–
invoice Rebates
Comment 9: Whether the Department
Should Revise POSCO’s General and
Administrative Selling (G&A) Expense
Ratio
Comment 10:Whether the Department
Should Revise POSCO’s Interest
Expense Ratio
Comment 11:Whether the Department
Should Re–Calculate POSAM’s U.S.
Indirect Selling Expense (ISE)
Comment 12:Whether the Department
Should Calculate POSAM’s Net Interest
Expense and Add it to POSAM’s U.S.
Indirect Selling Expense
Comment 13: Whether Department
Should Re–Calculate POSCO’s U.S.
Credit Expense
Comment 14: Ministerial Errors with
Respect to POSCO’s Overrun Sales and
Seconds
Comment 15:Whether the Department
Should Adjust POSCO’s Home Market
Interest Revenue
Union
Comment 16: Whether Union’s Scrap
Offsets Include Value Added Tax (VAT)
Comment 17: Whether Union
Reimbursed Dongkuk International, Inc.
for Antidumping Duties
Comment 18: Ministerial Errors for
Union
Comment 19: Union’s U.S. Indirect
Selling Expenses - Commission Sales
Comment 20: Union’s U.S. Indirect
Selling Expenses - Slab and Scrap
Revenue
Comment 21: Union’s Treatment of
Bad Debt Expenses
Comment 22: Union’s Net U.S. Interest
Expense
Comment 23: Whether to Use Partial
Facts Available for Union - Freight Costs
HYSCO
Comment 24: Whether the Department
Should Treat HYSCO’s U.S. After–Sale
Technical Service as a Direct Selling
Expense
Comment 25: Whether HYSCO Failed to
Report Warehousing Expenses for Its
U.S. Sales
Comment 26: Whether HYSCO Fails to
Report U.S. Commissions
Comment 27: Whether HYSCO
Misreported its Home Market Indirect
Selling Expenses
Comment 28: Whether the Department
Should Treat Certain HYSCO’s Local
Sales as U.S. Sales
Comment 29: Whether the Department
Should Recalculate HYSCO’s Costs by
Applying Different Production Yields
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Export Trade Certificate of Review
Notice of issuance of an
amended Export Trade Certificate of
Review application No. 00–1A002.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
issued an Export Trade Certificate of
Review (Certificate) to the CONSOL
Energy Inc. (Consol) on February 16,
2004. This notice summarizes the
conduct for which certification has been
granted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export
Trading Company Affairs, International
Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free
number) or e-mail at oetca@ita.doc.gov.
Title III of
the Export Trading Company Act of
1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce to issue Export
Trade Certificates of Review. The
regulations implementing title III are
found at 15 CFR part 325 (2003). The
Office of Export Trading Company
Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuing this notice
pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which
requires the Department of Commerce to
publish a summary of a Certificate in
the Federal Register. Under section 305
(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any
person aggrieved by the Secretary’s
determination may, within 30 days of
the date of this notice, bring an action
in any appropriate district court of the
United States to set aside the
determination on the ground that the
determination is erroneous.
Description of Amended Certificate:
Consol’s original Certificate was issued
on June 30, 2000 (65 FR 43738, July 14,
2000). Consol’s Certificate has been
amended as follows:
(1) The following company has been
added as a ‘‘Member’’ of the Certificate
within the meaning of section 325.2(1)
of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): X
Coal Energy & Resources, Latrobe, PA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: March 7, 2005.
Jeffrey C. Anspacher,
Director, Export Trading Company Affairs.
[FR Doc. E5–1064 Filed 3–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
[FR Doc. E5–1065 Filed 3–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:31 Mar 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[I.D. 030205B]
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Commercial Fishing Operations;
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Plan Regulations; Public Hearings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public hearings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS will hold 12 public
hearings in Maine, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida in
March and April 2005 for the purpose
of answering questions and receiving
public testimony on the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP)
draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS).
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
under the heading ‘‘Hearing Dates,
Times, and Locations’’ for the dates and
locations of the public hearings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast
Region, 978–281–9300 ext. 6503; Barb
Zoodsma, NMFS, Southeast Region,
904–321–2806; or Kristy Long, NMFS,
Office of Protected Resources, 301–713–
2322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 25, 2005, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published a
Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of
the DEIS for public review and
comment. The public comment period
on the DEIS is from February 25, 2005
to April 26, 2005. The public has the
opportunity to submit comments on the
document by any one of the following
methods:
(1) NMFS/Northeast Region Website:
https://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/
com. Follow the instructions on the
website for submitting comments.
(2) E-mail:
whaledeis.comments@noaa.gov.
(3) Mail: Mary Colligan, Assistant
Regional Administrator for Protected
Resources, NMFS, Northeast Region, 1
Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930,
ATTN: ALWTRP DEIS.
(4) Facsimile (fax) to: 978–281–9394,
ATTN: ALWTRP DEIS.
(5) Public hearings: submit oral
comments at one of the DEIS public
hearings.
NMFS has scheduled 12 public
hearings on the DEIS. The purpose of
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 48 (Monday, March 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12443-12446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1065]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-580-816)
Notice of Final Results of the Tenth Administrative Review and
New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 7, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty
administrative review and antidumping duty new shipper review for
certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the
Republic of Korea (Preliminary Results). This review covers four
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise: Union Steel
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union); Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd.
(POSCO), Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS), and Pohang Steel
Industries
[[Page 12444]]
Co., Ltd. (PSI) (collectively, POSCO); Dongbu Steel Corporation, Ltd.
(Dongbu); and Dongshin Special Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongshin).\1\ The
period of review (POR) is August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. In
response to a request from Hyundai Hysco (HYSCO), the Department is
also conducting a new shipper review. The POR for the new shipper
review is also August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On May 5, 2004, the Department rescinded the review of SeAH
Steel Corporation (SeAH) because neither SeAH nor its affiliates had
exports or sales of the subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Korea: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 25059 (May 5, 2004). On June 22, 2004, the Department
published a correction regarding its rescission of the review of
SeAH. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea:
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
34646, in which the Department addressed a comment from petitioners
that it inadvertently failed to address in the March 4, 2004,
rescission notice. Upon review of petitioners' additional comment,
the Department determined to continue to rescind the review of SeAH.
Id. at 34647.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, these final
results differ from the preliminary results. For our final results, we
have found that during the POR POSCO sold subject merchandise at less
than normal value (NV). We have also found that Union, Dongbu, and
HYSCO did not make sales of the subject merchandise at less than NV
(i.e., they have ``zero'' or de minimis dumping margins). Regarding
Dongshin, because it failed to respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we preliminarily determined to resort to adverse facts
available and assigned to Dongshin the all others rate in effect for
this order (17.70 percent), which is the highest margin upheld in this
proceeding. See Preliminary Results, 69 FR at 54104. Since the
publication of the Preliminary Results, we have not received any
comments from interested parties that would warrant reconsideration of
our finding. Therefore, we have continued to assign a rate of 17.70
percent to Dongshin. The final results are listed in the ``Final
Results of Review'' section below. Furthermore, we rescinded the
request for review of the antidumping order for SeAH Steel Corporation
(SeAH) because neither SeAH nor its affiliates had exports or sales of
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. For more
information, see Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Korea: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69
FR 25059 (May 5, 2004) (Partial Rescission of CORE).
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Claessens (Union), Preeti
Tolani (Dongbu), Lyman Armstrong (POSCO), and Joy Zhang (HYSCO) at
(202) 482-5451, (202) 482-0395, (202) 482-3601, and (202) 482-1168,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 7, 2004, the Department of Commerce published the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review for Certain Corrosion-resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 69 FR 54101
(September 7, 2004). On October 29, 2004, the Department published the
notice of extension of final results of the antidumping administrative
review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea,
extending the date for these final results to March 7, 2005. See
Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Extension of
Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review
and New Shipper Review, 69 FR 63140.
From November 8 through November 19, 2004, the Department conducted
the cost verification of POSCO in Pohang, South Korea, and the sales
verification in Seoul, South Korea. The constructed export price (CEP)
verification was conducted at POSAM's headquarters in Fort Lee, New
Jersey, on January 13 and 14, 2005. The Department conducted the cost
and sales verification of Union in Seoul, South Korea, from November 10
through November 23, 2004, and the CEP verification was conducted at
the Torrance, California, facility of Dongkuk International, Inc. on
January 25 and 26, 2005. The Department conducted the cost and sales
verification of Dongbu in Seoul, South Korea, from January 11 through
January 21, 2005, and the CEP verification was conducted at the
Torrance, California, facility of Dongbu's subsidiary, Dongbu USA
Incorporated on January 27 and January 28, 2005. From January 10
through January 21, 2005, the Department conducted the sales
verification of HYSCO in Seoul, South Korea and the cost verification
at HYSCO's plant in Suncheon, South Korea.
Comments from Interested Parties
We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. On
February 11, 2005, United States Steel Corporation (US Steel) filed
case briefs, concerning POSCO and Union, and International Steel Group
(ISG) filed a case brief concerning POSCO, Union, Dongbu, and HYSCO.\2\
POSCO and Union, each filed case briefs on February 11, 2005. On
February 16, 2005, US Steel and ISG submitted rebuttal briefs
concerning POSCO, and Union, Dongbu, and HYSCO also submitted rebuttal
briefs. On February 18, 2005, a public hearing was held at the
Department with respect to POSCO, Union, Dongbu, and HYSCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ US Steel and ISG are petitioners in this segment of the
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
This order covers cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat-
rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad,
plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc,
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or
not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of
0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness
less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and
which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of
4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters
and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030,
7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060,
7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000,
7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000,
7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000,
7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are
corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-
section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling
process (i.e., products which have been ``worked after rolling'') for
example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges.
Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated
or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead
(``terne plate''), or both
[[Page 12445]]
chromium and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not
painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic
substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this
order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in
composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and
measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order
are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-
layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than
4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel
flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-
60%-20% ratio.
These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal brief by parties to
these administrative reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an
Appendix. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu.............................................. 0.33 de minimis
Union............................................... 0.36 de minimis
POSCO............................................... 2.34
HYSCO............................................... 0.00
Dongshin............................................ 17.70%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-
specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to
CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of CORE from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of these final
results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act): (1) for companies covered by this review, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies other than those covered by this review, the
cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the investigation, but the producer is, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review,
a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be
17.70 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the less-than-
fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f) 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 presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping
duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.
This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 7, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
APPENDIX I
List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum
General Issues:
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Request Further Information
and Change its Model-Match Methodology
Comment 2: Whether Expenses Incurred by Parent Companies in Korea for
Activities Performed There Should Be Treated as Constructed Export
Price (CEP) Selling Expenses
Comment 3: Whether POSCO and Dongbu Have Provided Sufficient Evidence
to Make a Case for the Department to Allow CEP Offsets
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Modify its Existing Criteria
for Adjusting U.S. Prices for Drawback and Restate or Disallow
Respondents' Drawback Adjustments
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Deduct ``Safeguard Duties''
When Calculating United States Prices
Company-Specific Issues:
Dongbu
Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Exclude Certain Low-priced
Home Market Sales from Dongbu's Database
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Dongbu's Credit
Expenses on Home Market Sales Denominated in U.S. Dollars
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Reallocate Dongbu's Home
Market Indirect Selling Expenses on the Basis of Sales
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Recalculate Dongbu's U.S.
Interest Revenue Based on a 365-day Year
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Use Dongbu's Standard Costs
plus POR Variances or Historical Costs Adjusted for Inflation in Order
to Calculate the Cost of Production of Merchandise Sold but Not
Produced During the POR
POSCO
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Exclude POSCO's ``Unusual''
U.S. Sale from its Margin Calculation Or, Alternatively, Treat it as
Non-prime
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Adjust POSCO's Reported Duty
Drawback
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Recalculate POSCO's Credit
[[Page 12446]]
Expense to Take into Account On-invoice Rebates
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Revise POSCO's General and
Administrative Selling (G&A) Expense Ratio
Comment 10:Whether the Department Should Revise POSCO's Interest
Expense Ratio
Comment 11:Whether the Department Should Re-Calculate POSAM's U.S.
Indirect Selling Expense (ISE)
Comment 12:Whether the Department Should Calculate POSAM's Net Interest
Expense and Add it to POSAM's U.S. Indirect Selling Expense
Comment 13: Whether Department Should Re-Calculate POSCO's U.S. Credit
Expense
Comment 14: Ministerial Errors with Respect to POSCO's Overrun Sales
and Seconds
Comment 15:Whether the Department Should Adjust POSCO's Home Market
Interest Revenue
Union
Comment 16: Whether Union's Scrap Offsets Include Value Added Tax (VAT)
Comment 17: Whether Union Reimbursed Dongkuk International, Inc. for
Antidumping Duties
Comment 18: Ministerial Errors for Union
Comment 19: Union's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses - Commission Sales
Comment 20: Union's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses - Slab and Scrap
Revenue
Comment 21: Union's Treatment of Bad Debt Expenses
Comment 22: Union's Net U.S. Interest Expense
Comment 23: Whether to Use Partial Facts Available for Union - Freight
Costs
HYSCO
Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Treat HYSCO's U.S. After-Sale
Technical Service as a Direct Selling Expense
Comment 25: Whether HYSCO Failed to Report Warehousing Expenses for Its
U.S. Sales
Comment 26: Whether HYSCO Fails to Report U.S. Commissions
Comment 27: Whether HYSCO Misreported its Home Market Indirect Selling
Expenses
Comment 28: Whether the Department Should Treat Certain HYSCO's Local
Sales as U.S. Sales
Comment 29: Whether the Department Should Recalculate HYSCO's Costs by
Applying Different Production Yields
[FR Doc. E5-1065 Filed 3-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S
