Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke in Part, 23990-23996 [E5-2222]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 87 (Friday, May 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23990-23996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2222]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-489-807)


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and two producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from 
Turkey. This review covers four producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. This is the sixth period of review 
(POR), covering April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004.
    We have preliminarily determined that one of the respondents, Habas 
Tibbi ve Sinai Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas), has made sales 
below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in 
the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the 
review with respect to the following companies because these companies 
had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR: Cebitas Demir 
Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas), Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret 
A.S. (Cemtas), Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan), 
Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik), Ege Metal 
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal), Ekinciler Holding A.S. 
and Ekinciler Demir Celik San A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler''), 
Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. (Iskenderun), Izmir Demir Celik 
Sanayi A.S. (Izmir), Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. 
(Kaptan), Kardemir--Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 
(Karabuk), Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman), Kurum Demir Sanayi ve 
Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum), Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk 
A.S. (Metas), Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet), Nursan 
Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan), Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri 
A.S. (Sivas), Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali), and Ucel 
Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel). Finally, we have 
preliminarily determined to revoke the antidumping duty order with 
respect to ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS). 
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. 
Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are requested to 
submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;

[[Page 23991]]

telephone (202) 482-0656 or (202) 482-0498, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 1, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey (69 FR 17129). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on April 30, 2004, the Department 
received requests from both Colakoglu and ICDAS to conduct an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from 
Turkey. As part of its request, ICDAS also requested that the 
Department revoke the dumping order with regard to it, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.222(b). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on 
April 30, 2004, the petitioners, Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, 
Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation, 
also requested an administrative review for the following 23 producers/
exporters of rebar: Cebitas; Cemtas; Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. 
(Colakoglu); Demirsan; Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., 
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Yazici), and Diler Dis 
Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler''); Ege Celik; Ege Metal; Ekinciler; 
Habas; ICDAS; Iskenderun; Izmir; Kaptan; Kardemir; Kroman; Kurum; 
Metas; Nurmet; Nursan; Sivas; Tosyali; and Ucel. In May 2004, the 
Department initiated an administrative review for each of these 
companies and issued questionnaires to them. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 30282 (May 27, 2004). In May and June 
2004, the following companies informed the Department that they had no 
shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR: Cebitas, 
Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, 
Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, and Tosyali. We reviewed CBP data and 
confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of 
these companies. We also confirmed with CBP data that Ege Metal, 
Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and Ucel did not have entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily 
rescinding our review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege 
Metal, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, 
Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. In July 2004 Colakoglu 
requested that the Department modify its reporting requirements with 
respect to its home market sales. Specifically, Colakoglu requested 
that it be excused from reporting home market sales and cost data for 
coiled rebar. In its request, Colakoglu stated that it sold only 
straight-length rebar in the U.S. market and noted that this was 
produced in a separate facility from coiled rebar. The Department 
granted Colakoglu's request on July 6, 2004. In August 2004 we received 
responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire (i.e., the 
sections regarding sales to the home market and the United States) and 
section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding cost of 
production (COP) and constructed value (CV)) from Colakoglu, Diler, 
Habas, and ICDAS. On November 4, 2004, the Department postponed the 
preliminary results of this review until no later than May 2, 2005. See 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of 
Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 65151 (Nov. 10, 2004). From November 2004 
through March 2005, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the 
participating respondents. We received responses to these 
questionnaires between December 2004 and March 2005. We verified the 
sales and cost information submitted by ICDAS in February and March 
2005.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel 
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This 
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail 
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round 
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, 
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ekinciler, 
Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, and Tosyali 
informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this 
with CBP. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and 
consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily 
rescinding our review with respect to these companies. See, e.g., 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and 
Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004) 
(2002-2003 Rebar Review) and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 
68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sep. 9, 2003) (2001-2002 Rebar Review). We have 
also confirmed with CBP that Ege Metal, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and 
Ucel did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. 
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with 
the Department's practice, we are also preliminarily rescinding our 
review with respect to Ege Metal, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and Ucel.

Notice of Intent To Revoke, in Part

    As noted above, on April 30, 2004, ICDAS submitted a letter to the 
Department requesting revocation of the antidumping duty order with 
respect to its sales of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(b). ICDAS's request was accompanied by a certification that it 
has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current 
POR and will not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future. 
ICDAS further certified that it sold the subject merchandise to the 
United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three 
consecutive years. The company also agreed to immediate reinstatement 
of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to 
the revocation, ICDAS sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
    Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), the Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an 
antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751(a) 
of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures the 
Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has 
developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 
351.222. Section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations explains 
that the Secretary may revoke an

[[Page 23992]]

antidumping duty order in part if the Secretary concludes, inter alia, 
that one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold 
the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV 
for a period of at least three consecutive years. See Notice of Final 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination 
Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from 
the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 (Jan. 6, 2000).
    We preliminarily determine that the request from ICDAS meets all of 
the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). With regard to the criteria of 
subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations 
show that ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV during the current 
review period. See the dumping margins below. In addition, ICDAS sold 
rebar at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews in 
which it was involved (i.e., ICDAS's dumping margin was zero or de 
minimis). See 2002-2003 Rebar Review and 2001-2002 Rebar Review.
    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by ICDAS, we 
preliminarily determine that ICDAS sold the subject merchandise in the 
United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years 
cited by ICDAS to support its request for revocation. See the 
memorandum to the file from Irina Itkin entitled ``Analysis of 
Commercial Quantities for ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, 
A.S.'s Request for Revocation,'' dated May 2, 2005. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that ICDAS had zero or de minimis dumping margins 
for its last three administrative reviews and sold in commercial 
quantities in each of these years. Also, we preliminarily determine 
that application of the antidumping duty order to ICDAS is no longer 
warranted for the following reasons: (1) the company had zero or de 
minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) 
the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the 
Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and 
(3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary 
to offset dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that ICDAS 
qualifies for revocation of the order on rebar pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to merchandise produced 
and exported by ICDAS should be revoked. If these preliminary findings 
are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke this order in part 
for ICDAS and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), terminate the 
suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that 
is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
April 1, 2004, and instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such 
entries.

Affiliated Producers

    ICDAS has an affiliated rolling mill, Demir Sanayi ve Celik Ticaret 
ve Sanayi A.S. (Demir Sanayi). ICDAS has argued that, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse these entities 
for purposes of this review because: (1) the two entities have the same 
shareholders and managers; (2) Demir Sanayi and ICDAS have the same 
production capacities for rebar; and (3) Demir Sanayi sold rebar in the 
home market for its own account. Based on the information on the record 
of this review, we preliminary find that it is appropriate to collapse 
ICDAS with Demir Sanayi, consistent with our treatment of these 
entities in the previous segment of this proceeding. For further 
discussion, see the memorandum to Louis Apple from the team entitled 
``Concurrence Memorandum,'' dated May 2, 2005 (concurrence memo).

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the 
United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to the 
NV. When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in 
the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice, above, that were in 
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of 
trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade based on the 
characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping 
questionnaire, or CV, as appropriate.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted 
to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. 
and home markets that were identical with respect to the following 
characteristics: form, grade, size, and American Society for Testing 
and Materials specification. Where there were no home market sales of 
foreign like product that were identical in these respects to the 
merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with 
the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the 
characteristics listed above, in that order of priority.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, we 
used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, 
because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based 
on the facts of record. Regarding the date of sale, three of the 
respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Habas, and ICDAS) argued in their 
questionnaire responses that we should use the date of either single-
shipment contracts or purchase orders as the date of sale for their 
U.S. sales in this review. However, we determined that it is 
appropriate to continue to follow our normal practice of using invoice 
date as the date of sale for all U.S. sales reported by all of the 
respondents in this review because the material terms of sale are 
established on that date. For further discussion, see the concurrence 
memo.

A. Colakoglu

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for inspection fees, lashing and 
loading expenses, demurrage expenses (offset by freight commission 
revenue, wharfage revenue, despatch revenue, demurrage commission 
revenue, agency fee revenue, attendance fee revenue, and other freight-
related revenue), ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, 
U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

B. Diler

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, brokerage and handling expenses, loading expenses (including 
charges for loading supervision), and ocean freight expenses (offset by 
despatch revenue), where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Regarding foreign inland freight expenses, 
Diler reported that these expenses were provided by an affiliated 
party. Because Diler was not able to demonstrate that these expenses 
were charged on an arm's-length basis, we adjusted the reported amounts 
to be equivalent to the market price. For further discussion, see the 
concurrence memo.

[[Page 23993]]

C. Habas

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made adjustments for billing adjustments. We also 
made deductions for foreign inland freight expenses, customs overtime 
fees, forklift charges, loading charges, surveying expenses, and ocean 
freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

D. ICDAS

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, surveying expenses, customs overtime fees, loading expenses, 
ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties, 
and U.S. brokerage charges, where appropriate, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    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 (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of each respondent'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)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales.
    For each respondent, in accordance with our practice, we excluded 
home market sales of non-prime merchandise made during the POR from our 
preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in the 
home market and the fact that no such sales were made to the United 
States during the POR. (See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993); Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice 
of Intent Not To Revoke in Part, FR 25066, 25066 (May 5, 2004); Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 21634, 21636 (May 1, 
2002) (unchanged by the final results); Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 56274 (Nov. 7, 2001) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.)

B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Diler and ICDAS made sales of rebar to affiliated parties in the 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales to 
ensure that they were made at ``arm's-length'' prices, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the sales to affiliates were 
made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Where the price to that 
affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent 
of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the 
unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade (LOT), we determined 
that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison 
Market, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Colakoglu, 
Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, there were reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that these respondents had made home market sales at prices 
below their COPs in this review because the Department had disregarded 
sales that failed the cost test for these companies in the most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which these companies 
participated (i.e., the 2001-2002 administrative review for Habas and 
the 2002-2003 administrative review for Colakoglu, Diler, and ICDAS). 
As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine 
whether these companies had made home market sales during the POR at 
prices below their COPs. See 2001-2002 Rebar Review and 2002-2003 Rebar 
Review.
    In this review, Habas and ICDAS reported their costs on both a 
quarterly basis and a POR basis. These respondents argued that the 
Department should base its analysis on their quarterly cost data 
because the world price of scrap experienced a significant increase 
during the POR. The Department has used monthly or quarterly costs in 
non-inflationary cases only when there was a single primary input 
product and that input experiences a significant and consistent decline 
or rise in its cost during the reporting period. Conversely, when there 
are inconsistent fluctuations in both directions we use a single 
weighted-average cost for the entire POR. See Certain Pasta from Italy; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 
(Dec. 13, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 18. In this case, because we do not find that the price of 
scrap experienced a significant and consistent increase during the POR, 
we have continued to follow the Department's normal practice of using 
weighted-average POR costs for all respondents. For further discussion, 
see the concurrence memo.

1. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses. See the ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home 
market selling expenses.
    We relied on the COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses, except for the following instances where the 
information was not appropriately quantified or valued:

A. Diler

1. We excluded the value of purchased rebar from the COP database.

2. We disallowed certain income items reported as offsets to G&A 
expenses because Diler failed to provide an explanation for them, 
despite the Department's request that it do so.

3. We recalculated the financial expense ratio for Diler based on the 
company-specific financial statements. However, because the resulting 
ratios are negative, we set them to zero in accordance with the 
Department's practice. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8933 (Feb. 23, 1998) (SRAMs from Taiwan).

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum 
from Ji Young Oh to Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Diler Demir 
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi

[[Page 23994]]

ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.,'' dated May 2, 2005.

B. Habas

1. We increased the POR weighted-average fixed overhead for each 
control number to include the difference between the total depreciation 
expenses recorded in Habas's general ledger and the amount included in 
the reported costs.

    For further discussion of this adjustment, see the memorandum from 
Alice Gibbons to the file entitled ``Calculations performed for Habas 
Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas) for the 
Preliminary Results in the 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated 
May 2, 2005.

2. Because the financial expense ratio for Habas is negative, we set it 
to zero in accordance with the Department's practice. See SRAMs from 
Taiwan, 63 FR at 8933.

C. ICDAS

1. We adjusted ICDAS's reported cost of manufacturing to include an 
unreconciled difference between the POR total cost of manufacturing 
recorded in the company's accounting system and the total cost of 
manufacturing reported in the COP/CV file.

2. We increased the POR weighted-average total cost of manufacturing of 
each control number as follows: a) we eliminated a credit for recycled 
scrap because this amount was overstated; b) we included the difference 
between the total depreciation expenses recorded in ICDAS's general 
ledger and the amount included in the reported costs; and c) we 
disallowed the claimed start-up adjustment for ICDAS's Biga melt shop.

3. We recalculated the weighted-average material costs for rebar in 
coil and consequently adjusted the weighted-average total cost of 
manufacturing for several products.

4. We recalculated ICDAS's submitted G&A expense ratio as follows: a) 
we included in the numerator expenses that are non-deductible for tax 
purposes and a contingent liability related to a legal dispute; b) we 
excluded from the numerator rental income received from the rental of a 
vessel and income related to the reversal of prior period expenses; c) 
we adjusted the gain on the sale of a vessel to an affiliated company 
to reflect a market price, in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the 
Act; and d) we excluded from the denominator the total 2003 scrap sales 
used as an offset in the calculation of the reported costs, as well as 
adjustments for depreciation and start-up costs.

5. We adjusted the reported total cost of sales used as the denominator 
of the financial expense ratio to exclude the total 2003 scrap sales 
used as an offset to the reported costs, as well as the adjustments to 
depreciation expenses and start-up costs noted in items 2.b. and c., 
above. Because the ratio remains negative, we set it to zero in 
accordance with the Department's practice. See SRAMs from Taiwan, 63 FR 
at 8933.
    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum 
from Ji Young Oh to Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,'' dated May 
2, 2005.

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices 
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, selling expenses, 
and packing expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were 
made: (1) in substantial quantities within an extended period of time; 
and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time. See sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of 
the Act.

3. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a 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 a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that 
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such 
cases, 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)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for 
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded these below-cost 
sales for Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS and used the remaining 
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in 
the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales 
from which we derive selling, G&A expenses, and profit. For EP, the 
U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually 
from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, 
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 affects 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 
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    All respondents claimed that they made home market sales at only 
one LOT. We analyzed the information on the record for each company and 
found that three of the respondents, Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas, 
performed essentially the same marketing functions in selling to all of 
their home market and U.S. customers, regardless of customer category 
(e.g., end-user, distributor). Therefore, we determine that these sales 
are at the same LOT. We further determine that no LOT adjustment is 
warranted for these respondents.
    Regarding ICDAS, we found that this company performs additional 
selling functions on certain home market sales. Specifically, we found 
that ICDAS performs an additional layer of selling functions on its 
sales through affiliated distributors which are not performed on its 
sales to unaffiliated customers. Because these additional selling 
functions are significant, we find that ICDAS's sales through 
affiliated distributors are at a different LOT than its direct sales to 
unaffiliated parties. We further find that the LOT for U.S. sales is 
the same as the home market LOT for ICDAS's direct sales to 
unaffiliated parties because the selling functions performed by ICDAS 
are essentially the same in both markets. Consequently, we compared 
ICDAS's EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market (i.e., 
ICDAS's direct home market sales). For further discussion,

[[Page 23995]]

see the concurrence memo. Because all comparisons were made at the same 
LOT, no LOT adjustment is warranted.

E. Calculation of Normal Value

1. Colakoglu

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the Turkish lira (TL) price adjusted for kur 
farki (i.e., an adjustment to the TL invoice price to account for the 
difference between the estimated and actual TL value on the date of 
payment), because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, 
and this price remained unchanged; the buyer merely paid the TL-
equivalent amount at the time of payment. This treatment is consistent 
with our treatment of these transactions in the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
From Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part, 
69 FR 25063, 25067 (May 5, 2004) (unchanged in the final results). 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank charges, exporter 
association fees, and commissions. Regarding commissions, Colakoglu 
incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. Therefore, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by the lesser 
of the commission amount or home market indirect selling expenses. We 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 
19 CFR 351.411(b).

2. Diler

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because 
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price 
remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, bank fees, and exporter association fees.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 
19 CFR 351.411(b).

3. Habas

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because 
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price 
remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, exporter association fees, and commissions.Regarding 
commissions, Habas incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. 
Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by 
the lesser of the commission amount or home market indirect selling 
expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 
19 CFR 351.411(b).

4. ICDAS

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because 
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price 
remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, bank charges, and exporter association fees. We deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 
19 CFR 351.411(b).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars pursuant to sections 
773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415. Although the Department's 
preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank, 
the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for 
Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on exchange 
rates from the Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as 
Factiva).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
respondents during the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                 Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S.....................................       0.01
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S.,...............
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.,..................
and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S...................................       0.33
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S........      26.07
ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S............       0.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in

[[Page 23996]]

connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 
days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.
    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all of Habas's sales and 
certain of ICDAS's sales, because we have the reported entered value of 
the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales.
    Regarding all of Colakoglu's and Diler's sales, as well as certain 
of ICDAS's sales, we note that these companies did not report the 
entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in 
question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de 
minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based 
on the EPs.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
    We are preliminarily revoking the order with respect to ICDAS's 
exports of subject merchandise. If this revocation becomes final, we 
will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for 
exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after April 1, 2004, and to refund all cash deposits 
collected.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit 
will be zero; 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 less than fair value (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) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the All 
Others rate established in the LTFV investigation. 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 preliminary 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 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 2, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-2222 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S