Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, 39990-39995 [E5-3690]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39990
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Notices
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–13598 Filed 7–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
DOC has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
clearance of the following proposal for
collection of information under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13.
Bureau: International Trade
Administration.
Title: Mission/Exhibition Evaluation.
Agency Form Number: ITA–4075P.
OMB Number: 0625–0034.
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Burden: 167 hours.
Number of Respondents: 2,000.
Avg. Hours Per Response: 5 minutes.
Needs and Uses: U.S. Department of
Commerce (DOC) and DOC-certified
trade missions and exhibitions are
overseas events planned, organized and
led by government and non-government
export promotion agencies such as
industry trade associations, agencies of
Federal, state and local governments;
chambers of commerce; regional
consortia; and other export oriented
groups. This form is used to: (1)
Evaluate the effectiveness of DOC or
DOC-certified overseas trade events
through the collection of information
relating to required performance
measures; (2) document the results of
participation in DOC trade events; (3)
evaluate results reported by small to
mid-sized, new-to-exports/new-tomarket U.S. companies; (4) document
the successful completion of trade
promotion activities conducted by
overseas DOC offices; and (5) identify
strengths and weaknesses of DOC trade
promotion programs in the interest of
improving service to the U.S. business
community. This request is being
submitted to extend OMB authority for
this information collection form to
enable participants to continue to
address whether or not their overall
objective(s) were met by participating in
a particular trade mission or exhibition.
Affected Public: Business or other for
profit, not-for-profit institutions.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit, voluntary.
OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,
(202) 395–7340.
Copies of the above information
collection can be obtained by calling or
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:15 Jul 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
writing Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6612,
14th & Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Phone Number:
(202) 482–3129. E-mail:
dHynek@doc.gov.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent to
David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer,
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax
(202) 395–7285, within 30 days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–13596 Filed 7–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–FP–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
DOC has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
clearance the following proposal for
collection of information under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13.
Bureau: International Trade
Administration.
Title: Application for an Export Trade
Certificate of Review.
Agency Form Number: ITA–4093P.
OMB Number: 0625–0125.
Type of Request: Regular submission.
Burden: 384 hours.
Number of Respondents: 12.
Avg. Hours Per Response: 32 hours.
Needs and Uses: Title III of the Export
Trading Company Act of 1982 (Pub. L.
97–290, 96 Stat. 1233–1247), requires
the Department of Commerce to
establish a program to evaluate
applications for an Export Trade
Certificates of Review (antitrust
preclearance for joint export related
activities), and with the concurrence of
the Department of Justice, issue such
certificates where the requirements of
the Act are satisfied. The Act requires
that Commerce and Justice conduct
economic and legal antitrust analyses
prior to the issuance of a certificate. The
collection of information is necessary to
conduct the required economic and
legal antitrust analyses. Without the
information, there could be no basis
upon which a certificate could be
issued.
In the Department of Commerce, the
economic and legal analyses are
performed by the Office of Export
Trading Company Affairs and the Office
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the General Counsel, respectively.
The Department of Justice analyses will
be conducted by its Antitrust Division.
The purpose of such analyses is to make
a determination as to whether or not to
issue an Export Trade Certificate of
Review. A certificate provides its holder
and the members named in the
certificate (a) immunity from
government actions under state and
Federal antitrust laws for the export
conduct specified in the certificate; (b)
some protection from frivolous private
suits by limiting their liability in private
actions from treble to actual damages
when the challenged activities are
covered by an Export Certificate of
Review. Title III was enacted to reduce
uncertainty regarding application of
U.S. antitrust laws to export activitiesespecially those involving actions by
domestic competitors. Application for
an export trade certificate of review is
voluntary.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profit, not-for-profit institutions,
state, local or tribal Government.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit, voluntary.
OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,
(202) 395–7340.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 6612, 14th and
Constitution, NW., Washington, DC
20230. E-mail: dHynek@doc.gov.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent to
David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer,
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax
(202) 395–7285 within 30 days of the
publication of this notice.
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Madeline Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–13597 Filed 7–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–274–804]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Carbon
and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From
Trinidad and Tobago
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Notices
SUMMARY: In response to requests by
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on carbon
and alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’)
from Trinidad and Tobago for the period
of review (‘‘POR’’) October 1, 2003,
through September 30, 2004.
We preliminarily determine that
during the POR, Carribean Ispat Limited
and its affiliates Ispat North America
Inc. (‘‘INA’’) and Walker Wire (Ipsat)
Inc. (‘‘Walker Wire’’) (collectively
‘‘CIL’’), sold subject merchandise at less
than normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these
preliminary results are adopted in the
final results of this administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties equal to the
difference between the export price
(‘‘EP’’) or constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) and NV.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments in this
segment of the proceeding should also
submit with them: (1) a statement of the
issues and (2) a brief summary of the
comments. Further, parties submitting
written comments are requested to
provide the Department with an
electronic version of the public version
of any such comments on diskette.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
July 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure or James Terpstra, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482–
3965, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on wire rod
from Trinidad and Tobago; see Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67
FR 65945 (‘‘Wire Rod Orders’’). On
October 1, 2004, we published in the
Federal Register a Notice of
Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review of Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 58889.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:15 Jul 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
We received timely requests for
review from petitioners1, and CIL2, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2).
On November 19, 2004, we published
the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review
covering the period October 1, 2003,
through September 30, 2004, naming
CIL as the respondent. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 67701
(November 19, 2004). On December 1,
2004, we sent a questionnaire to CIL.3
Section B: Comparison Market Sales
Section C: Sales to the United States
Section D: Cost of Production and
Constructed Value
Section E: Cost of Further
Manufacture or Assembly Performed in
the United States
CIL submitted its responses to
sections A through D of the
Department’s questionnaire on January
31, 2005, and sections C and E relating
to Walker Wire on February 28, 2005.
On April 27, 2005, the petitioners
submitted comments on CIL’s
questionnaire response.
On March 22, 2005, the Department
issued a section A–E supplemental
questionnaire to CIL. We received the
response to the supplemental
questionnaire on April 20, 2005. On
May 5, 2005, the Department issued a
second section A–E supplemental
questionnaire to CIL. We received the
response to the second supplemental
questionnaire on May 25, 2005.
On June 6, 2005, the petitioners
requested that the Department issue
additional questions with regard to
CIL’s claimed level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) and
request for a CEP Offset.
On June 14, 2005, the Department
received a reconciliation of CIL’s home
market and U.S. sales database to its
income statements.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order
is certain hot–rolled products of carbon
steel and alloy steel, in coils, of
approximately round cross section, 5.00
mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in
solid cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel
products possessing the above–noted
1 The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc.
(formerly Georgetown Steel Company), Gerdau
Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.),
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North
Star Steel Texas, Inc.
2 On May 2, 2005, we preliminarily found that
Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited is the successor-ininterest to CIL. See Notice of Initiation and
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad
and Tobago, 70 FR 22634.
3 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices,
Markets and Merchandise
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39991
physical characteristics and meeting the
HTSUS definitions for (a) stainless steel;
(b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d)
ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete
reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded
are (f) free machining steel products
(i.e., products that contain by weight
one or more of the following elements:
0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05
percent or more of bismuth, 0.08
percent or more of sulfur, more than
0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than
0.05 percent of selenium, or more than
0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are
1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod
and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire
rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality
rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord
quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or
more but not more than 6.0 mm in
cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an
average partial decarburization of no
more than 70 microns in depth
(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non–deformable inclusions
greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35
microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or
better using European Method NFA 04–
114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than
0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to
a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or
fewer breaks per ton, and (vii)
containing by weight the following
elements in the proportions shown: (1)
0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less
than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3)
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate,
of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006
percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not
more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium.
This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod
is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead
quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or
more but not more than 7.0 mm in
cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an
average partial decarburization of no
more than 70 microns in depth
(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non–deformable inclusions
greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35
microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or
better using European Method NFA 04–
114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than
0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to
a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5
or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii)
containing by weight the following
elements in the proportions shown: (1)
0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less
than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,
(3) 0.040 percent or less, in the
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
39992
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Notices
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4)
0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5)
either not more than 0.15 percent, in the
aggregate, of copper, nickel and
chromium (if chromium is not
specified), or not more than 0.10 percent
in the aggregate of copper and nickel
and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30
percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of the grade 1080 tire
cord quality wire rod and the grade
1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an
inclusion will be considered to be
deformable if its ratio of length
(measured along the axis - that is, the
direction of rolling - of the rod) over
thickness (measured on the same
inclusion in a direction perpendicular
to the axis of the rod) is equal to or
greater than three. The size of an
inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns
and 35 microns limitations is the
measurement of the largest dimension
observed on a longitudinal section
measured in a direction perpendicular
to the axis of the rod. This measurement
methodology applies only to inclusions
on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality
wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire
bead quality wire rod that are entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia,
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago,
and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review, 68 FR 64079
(November 12, 2003).
The designation of the products as
‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’
indicates the acceptability of the
product for use in the production of tire
cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other
rubber reinforcement applications such
as hose wire. These quality designations
are presumed to indicate that these
products are being used in tire cord, tire
bead, and other rubber reinforcement
applications, and such merchandise
intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or
other rubber reinforcement applications
is not included in the scope. However,
should petitioners or other interested
parties provide a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that there exists a
pattern of importation of such products
for other than those applications, end–
use certification for the importation of
such products may be required. Under
such circumstances, only the importers
of record would normally be required to
certify the end use of the imported
merchandise.
All products meeting the physical
description of subject merchandise that
are not specifically excluded are
included in this scope.
The products under review are
currently classifiable under subheadings
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:15 Jul 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090,
7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590,
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090,
7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038,
7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010,
7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090,
7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051,
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and
7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of
this proceeding is dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), all products produced by the
respondent covered by the description
in the Scope of the Order section, above,
and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during
the POR are considered to be foreign
like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. We have
relied on eight criteria to match U.S.
sales of subject merchandise to
comparison market sales of the foreign
like product: grade range, carbon
content range, surface quality,
deoxidation, maximum total residual
content, heat treatment, diameter range,
and coating. These characteristics have
been weighted by the Department where
appropriate. Where there were no sales
of identical merchandise in the home
market made in the ordinary course of
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to the next most
similar foreign like product on the basis
of the characteristics listed above.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of wire
rod from Trinidad and Tobago were
made in the United States at less than
NV, we compared the EP or CEP to the
NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price
and Constructed Export Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)
of the Act, we calculated monthly
weighted–average prices for NV and
compared these to individual U.S.
transactions.
Export Price and Constructed Export
Price
For the price to the United States, we
used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in
accordance with sections 772(a) and (b)
of the Act. We calculated EP when the
merchandise was sold by the producer
or exporter outside the United States
directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to
importation and when CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts
on the record. We calculated CEP for
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
those sales where a person in the United
States, affiliated with the foreign
exporter or acting for the account of the
exporter, made the sale to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States of the subject merchandise. We
based EP and CEP on the packed prices
charged to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States and the
applicable terms of sale. When
appropriate, we reduced these prices to
reflect discounts and increased the
prices to reflect billing adjustments and
surcharges.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2)
of the Act, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for movement expenses
including inland freight, international
freight, demurrage expenses, marine
insurance, survey fees, U.S. customs
duties and various U.S. movement
expenses from arrival to delivery.
For CEP, in accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate,
we deducted from the starting price
those selling expenses that were
incurred in selling the subject
merchandise in the United States,
including direct selling expenses (cost
of credit, warranty, and further
manufacturing). In addition, we
deducted indirect selling expenses that
related to economic activity in the
United States. These expenses include
certain indirect selling expenses
incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors.
We also deducted from CEP an amount
for profit in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Furthermore, we recalculated INA’s
credit expense and inventory carrying
costs as we did in the final results of the
first administrative review. See Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 12648
(March 15, 2005) (‘‘First Review’’) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6.
Normal Value
A. SELECTION OF COMPARISON MARKETS
To determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV, we compared CIL’s
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of its
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because CIL had
an aggregate volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product that was
greater than five percent of its aggregate
volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, we determined that the
home market was viable.
B. COST OF PRODUCTION ANALYSIS
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Notices
The Department found and
disregarded home market sales that
were made below the cost of production
(‘‘COP’’) in the most recently completed
segment of the proceeding in which CIL
participated. See First Review. Pursuant
to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we
have reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales by CIL of the foreign
like product under consideration for the
determination of NV in this review were
made at prices below the COP.
Therefore, we initiated a cost
investigation of the respondent.
1. Calculation of COP
Before making any comparisons to
NV, we conducted a COP analysis of
CIL, pursuant to section 773(b) of the
Act, to determine whether the
respondent’s comparison market sales
were made below the COP. We
calculated the COP based on the sum of
the cost of materials and fabrication for
the foreign like product, plus amounts
for selling, general, and administrative
expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) and packing, in
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the
Act. CIL reported cost databases based
on generally accepted accounting
principles (‘‘GAAP’’) in Trinidad and
Tobago and U.S. GAAP. Pursuant to
section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, the
Department relied on CIL’s cost
database which was based on CIL’s
audited financial statements prepared in
accordance with their home country
GAAP (i.e., IAS) as submitted.4
In addition, CIL requested that we use
control number–specific costs for two
six-month cost periods (October 2003
through March 2004 and April 2004
through September 2004) to account for
the increase in raw material (i.e., iron
ore and various alloys used in the
production of wire rod) prices during
the POR. CIL based its request, in its
January 31, 2005, section D response, on
the fact that the cost of certain inputs
increased substantially.
Our normal practice for a respondent
in a country that is not experiencing
high inflation is to calculate a single
weighted–average cost for the entire
POR except in unusual cases where this
preferred method would not yield an
appropriate comparison in the margin
calculation. See Notice of Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to
Revoke Order: Brass Sheet and Strip
from the Netherlands, 64 FR 48760
(September 8, 1999) citing Final
4 For the final determination of the investigation
and final results of the first administrative review,
we used cost databases based on CIL’s home market
GAAP. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, 67 FR
55788 (August 30, 2002) and First Review.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:15 Jul 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from the Republic of
Korea; 64 FR 30664, 30676 (June 8,
1999) (concluding that weighted–
average costs for two periods were
permissible where major declines in
currency valuations distorted the
margin calculations); Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Static Random Access Memory
Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR
8909, 8925 (February 23, 1998)
(calculating quarterly weighted–average
costs due to a significant and consistent
price and cost decline in the market);
Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: Dynamic Random
Access Memory Semiconductors of One
Megabit and Above from the Republic of
Korea; 58 FR 15467, 15476 (March 23,
1993) (determining that the Department
may use quarterly weighted–average
costs where there exists a consistent
downward trend in both U.S. and home
market prices during the period); Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Erasable Programable Read Only
Memories from Japan; 51 FR 39680,
39682 (October 30, 1986) (finding that
significant changes in the COP during a
short period of time due to
technological advancements and
changes in production process justified
the use of quarterly weighted–average
costs).
We have reviewed the information on
the record. CIL has not demonstrated
that the raw material price increases
were significant and/or consistent and
would distort the margin calculation.
Therefore, we followed our normal
practice of calculating a single
weighted–average cost for the POR.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of
the Act, we compared the weighted–
average COP to the per–unit price of the
comparison market sales of the foreign
like product, to determine whether
these sales were made at prices below
the COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities, and
whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. We
determined the net comparison market
prices for the below–cost test by
subtracting from the gross unit price any
applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect
selling expenses, and packing expenses
which were excluded from COP for
comparison purposes.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39993
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 during the POR were at prices
less than the COP, we determined such
sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of
the Act. Further, the sales were made
within an extended period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of
the Act, because they were made over
the course of the POR. In such cases,
because we compared prices to POR–
average costs, we also determined that
such sales were not made at prices
which would permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)
of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of
this administrative review, we
disregarded below–cost sales of a given
product and used the remaining sales as
the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act. See Preliminary Calculation
Memorandum for Caribbean Ispat Ltd.,
dated July 5, 2005, on file in the Central
Records Unit, room B099 of the main
Department building, for our calculation
methodology and results.
C. CALCULATION OF NORMAL VALUE BASED
ON COMPARISON MARKET PRICES
We based home market prices on
packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers
in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted
the starting price for inland freight
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of
the Act. In addition, for comparisons
made to EP sales, we made adjustments
for differences in circumstances of sale
(‘‘COS’’) pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made
COS adjustments by deducting direct
selling expenses incurred for home
market sales (credit expense) and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(credit and warranty directly linked to
sales transactions). No other
adjustments to NV were claimed or
allowed.
When comparing U.S. sales with
comparison market sales of similar, but
not identical, merchandise, we also
made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 of the
Department’s regulations. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the
variable cost of manufacturing for the
foreign like product and subject
merchandise, using POR–average costs.
D. LEVEL OF TRADE/CONSTRUCTED EXPORT
PRICE OFFSET
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
39994
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Notices
sales in the comparison market at the
same LOT as the EP or CEP transaction.
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 SG&A expenses
and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT
is also the level of the starting–price
sale, which is usually from exporter to
importer. For CEP transactions, it is the
level of the constructed sale from the
exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than EP or CEP
transactions, 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. For CEP sales, if the NV level
is more remote from the factory than the
CEP level and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in
the levels between NV and CEP affects
price comparability, we adjust NV
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act
(the CEP–offset provision).
In implementing these principles in
this review, we obtained information
from CIL about the marketing stages
involved in the reported U.S. and home
market sales, including a description of
the selling activities performed by CIL
for each channel of distribution. In
identifying LOTs for EP and home
market sales, we considered the selling
functions reflected in the starting price
before any adjustments. For CEP sales,
we considered only the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction
of expenses pursuant to section 772(d)
of the Act.
In the home market, CIL reported
sales to end–users as its only channel of
distribution. In the U.S. market, CIL
reported sales through two channels of
distribution, one involving sales made
directly by CIL to end–users and trading
companies, and the second involving
sales made by CIL’s affiliated U.S.
resellers to end–users. We have
determined that the sales made by CIL
directly to U.S. customers are EP sales
and those made by CIL’s affiliated U.S.
resellers constitute CEP sales.
We found the home market and EP
sales to be at the same LOT. CIL’s EP
sales and home market sales were both
made primarily to end–users. In both
cases, the selling functions performed
by CIL were almost identical in both
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:15 Jul 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
markets. Other than freight & delivery
arrangement, which was only provided
for U.S. sales, in both markets CIL
provided services such as: strategic and
economic planning, sales forecasting,
sales force development, solicitation of
orders, technical advice, price
negotiation, processing purchase orders,
invoicing, extending credit, managing
accounts receivable, and making
arrangements for warranties related to
sales.
CIL makes CEP sales to the United
States through its affiliates, INA and
Walker Wire. Sales through CIL’s
affiliates are normally made to unrelated
end–users in the U.S. market. However,
because in our LOT analysis for CEP
sales we only consider the selling
activities reflected in the price after the
deduction of the expenses incurred by
the U.S. affiliate, the record indicates
that for CIL’s CEP sales there are
substantially fewer services performed
than the sales in its home market.
Therefore, we have determined that
CIL’s home market sales are made at a
more advanced stage of the marketing
process than the CEP sales to the
affiliates and therefore are at a different
LOT within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.412.
Accordingly, when we compared CEP
sales to home market sales, we
examined whether an LOT adjustment
may be appropriate. As CIL sold at only
one LOT in the home market, there is
no basis to determine that there is a
pattern of consistent price differences
between LOTs. Further, we do not have
information which would allow us to
examine pricing patterns of CIL’s sales
of other similar products, and there are
no other respondents or record evidence
on which such an analysis could be
based.
Because the data available do not
provide an appropriate basis for making
an LOT adjustment and the LOT of CIL’s
home market sales is at a more
advanced stage of marketing than the
LOT of the CEP sales, we have made a
CEP offset to CIL’s NV in accordance
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
This offset is equal to the amount of
indirect expenses incurred in the home
market not exceeding the amount of the
deductions made from the U.S. price in
accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of
the Act.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary
results, we made currency conversions
in accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Act, based on the official exchange
rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales,
as obtained from the Federal Reserve
Bank.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine that the
following weighted–average dumping
margin exists for the period October 1,
2003, through September 30, 2004:
Manufacturer/exporter
Caribbean Ispat Limited
Margin (percent)
6.19
The Department will disclose
calculations performed within five days
of the date of publication of this notice
to the parties of this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 37 days after the date of
publication, or the first working day
thereafter, unless the Department alters
the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d).
Interested parties may submit case briefs
no later than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results
of review. Rebuttal briefs limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed no later than 35 days after the date
of publication. Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the
issue, and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Further, parties submitting
written comments are requested to
provide the Department with an
additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on diskette. The
Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, which
will include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such comments, or
at a hearing, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
The Department shall determine and
CBP shall assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b), the Department
calculated an assessment rate for each
importer of the subject merchandise.
Upon issuance of the final results of this
administrative review, if any importer–
specific assessment rates calculated in
the final results are above de minimis
(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the
Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP to assess
antidumping duties on appropriate
entries by applying the assessment rate
to the entered value of the merchandise.
For assessment purposes, we calculated
importer–specific assessment rates for
the subject merchandise by aggregating
the dumping margins for all U.S. sales
to each importer and dividing the
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Notices
amount by the total entered value of the
sales to that importer.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for
each producer and/or exporter included
in this administrative review, we
divided the total dumping margins for
each company by the total net value for
that company’s sales during the review
period.
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of wire rod from Trinidad
and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The
cash deposit rate for the company listed
above will be the rate established in the
final results of this review, except if the
rate is less than 0.5 percent and,
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit
rate will be zero; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate published for the most recent final
results in which that manufacturer or
exporter participated; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the original less than
fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the
most recent final results for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
any previous review conducted by the
Department, the cash deposit rate will
be 11.40 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate
established in the LTFV investigation.
See Wire Rod Orders.
These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of
the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
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 Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and
increase the subsequent assessment of
the antidumping duties by the amount
of antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of this
administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:15 Jul 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–3690 Filed 7–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–351–828]
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Hot–
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
From Brazil
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is fully extending the time limit for the
final results of the administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on
certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products from Brazil. The period of
review is March 1, 2003, through
February 29, 2004. This extension is
made pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Helen Kramer or Kristin Najdi at (202)
482–0405 or (202) 482–8221,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 7, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On April 6, 2005, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published the preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain hot–
rolled carbon steel flat products from
Brazil covering the period March 1,
2003, through February 29, 2004 (70 FR
17406). The final results for the
antidumping duty administrative review
of certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products from Brazil are currently due
no later than August 4, 2005.
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by
the Uruguay Agreement Act (the Act),
requires the Department to issue the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an
antidumping duty order for which a
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39995
review is requested and issue 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 the time period, section
741(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend these deadlines to
a maximum of 365 days and 180 days,
respectively.
The Department has determined it is
not practicable to complete this review
within the originally anticipated time
limit (i.e., by August 4, 2005), in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act, for the following reasons: (1)
the cost verification of the affiliated
importer located in the United States is
scheduled to take place July 20–22,
2005; (2) there is insufficient time for
the briefing schedule following the sales
and cost verifications; and (3) a
domestic interested party has requested
a hearing, which must take place after
the briefs are filed. Accordingly, the
Department is fully extending the time
limits for completion of the final results
to no later than October 3, 2005.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with Section
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 6, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–3685 Filed 7–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–357–810]
Notice of Preliminary Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods,
Other Than Drill Pipe, From Argentina
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
the petitioner, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) initiated an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on oil country
tubular goods from Argentina. This
review covers one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise,
Siderca S.A.I.C. (Siderca). The
Department is preliminarily rescinding
this review based on record evidence
indicating that the respondent had no
entries of subject merchandise during
the period of review (POR). The POR is
August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.
DATES: Effective Date: July 12, 2005.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39990-39995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-274-804]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 39991]]
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod
(``wire rod'') from Trinidad and Tobago for the period of review
(``POR'') October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.
We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Carribean Ispat
Limited and its affiliates Ispat North America Inc. (``INA'') and
Walker Wire (Ipsat) Inc. (``Walker Wire'') (collectively ``CIL''), sold
subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV''). If these
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties equal to the
difference between the export price (``EP'') or constructed export
price (``CEP'') and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding
should also submit with them: (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a
brief summary of the comments. Further, parties submitting written
comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic
version of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or James Terpstra, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5973 or (202) 482-3965, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and
Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (``Wire Rod Orders''). On October 1,
2004, we published in the Federal Register a Notice of Opportunity to
Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 58889.
We received timely requests for review from petitioners\1\, and
CIL\2\, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 19, 2004,
we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review covering the period October 1, 2003, through
September 30, 2004, naming CIL as the respondent. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 67701
(November 19, 2004). On December 1, 2004, we sent a questionnaire to
CIL.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc. (formerly Georgetown
Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel
Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North
Star Steel Texas, Inc.
\2\ On May 2, 2005, we preliminarily found that Mittal Steel
Point Lisas Limited is the successor-in-interest to CIL. See Notice
of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 22634.
\3\ Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and
Merchandise
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section B: Comparison Market Sales
Section C: Sales to the United States
Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or Assembly Performed in the
United States
CIL submitted its responses to sections A through D of the
Department's questionnaire on January 31, 2005, and sections C and E
relating to Walker Wire on February 28, 2005. On April 27, 2005, the
petitioners submitted comments on CIL's questionnaire response.
On March 22, 2005, the Department issued a section A-E supplemental
questionnaire to CIL. We received the response to the supplemental
questionnaire on April 20, 2005. On May 5, 2005, the Department issued
a second section A-E supplemental questionnaire to CIL. We received the
response to the second supplemental questionnaire on May 25, 2005.
On June 6, 2005, the petitioners requested that the Department
issue additional questions with regard to CIL's claimed level of trade
(``LOT'') and request for a CEP Offset.
On June 14, 2005, the Department received a reconciliation of CIL's
home market and U.S. sales database to its income statements.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid
cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted
physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for (a)
stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball
bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also
excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that
contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent
or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more
of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent
of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA
04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a
length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter
of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing
by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3)
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4)
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent,
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv)
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the
[[Page 39992]]
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered
to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that
is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on
the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod)
is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for
purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the
measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section
measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This
measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade
1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead
quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after July 24, 2003. Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68
FR 64079 (November 12, 2003).
The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use
certification for the importation of such products may be required.
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this
scope.
The products under review are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590,
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090,
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051,
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), all products produced by the respondent covered
by the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold
in Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like
product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality,
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago
were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP or
CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly
weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S.
transactions.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter
outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP
for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with
the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made
the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of
the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the
applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to
reflect discounts and increased the prices to reflect billing
adjustments and surcharges.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland
freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance,
survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses
from arrival to delivery.
For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty,
and further manufacturing). In addition, we deducted indirect selling
expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These
expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by
affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for
profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Furthermore, we recalculated INA's credit expense and inventory
carrying costs as we did in the final results of the first
administrative review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 12648 (March 15, 2005) (``First Review'')
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared
CIL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because CIL had an
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
[[Page 39993]]
The Department found and disregarded home market sales that were
made below the cost of production (``COP'') in the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding in which CIL participated. See
First Review. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by CIL of the
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in
this review were made at prices below the COP. Therefore, we initiated
a cost investigation of the respondent.
1. Calculation of COP
Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of
CIL, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the
respondent's comparison market sales were made below the COP. We
calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing, in
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. CIL reported cost
databases based on generally accepted accounting principles (``GAAP'')
in Trinidad and Tobago and U.S. GAAP. Pursuant to section 773(f)(1)(A)
of the Act, the Department relied on CIL's cost database which was
based on CIL's audited financial statements prepared in accordance with
their home country GAAP (i.e., IAS) as submitted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the final determination of the investigation and final
results of the first administrative review, we used cost databases
based on CIL's home market GAAP. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, 67 FR 55788 (August 30, 2002) and
First Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, CIL requested that we use control number-specific
costs for two six-month cost periods (October 2003 through March 2004
and April 2004 through September 2004) to account for the increase in
raw material (i.e., iron ore and various alloys used in the production
of wire rod) prices during the POR. CIL based its request, in its
January 31, 2005, section D response, on the fact that the cost of
certain inputs increased substantially.
Our normal practice for a respondent in a country that is not
experiencing high inflation is to calculate a single weighted-average
cost for the entire POR except in unusual cases where this preferred
method would not yield an appropriate comparison in the margin
calculation. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Order: Brass Sheet and Strip
from the Netherlands, 64 FR 48760 (September 8, 1999) citing Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; 64 FR 30664, 30676 (June
8, 1999) (concluding that weighted-average costs for two periods were
permissible where major declines in currency valuations distorted the
margin calculations); Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR
8909, 8925 (February 23, 1998) (calculating quarterly weighted-average
costs due to a significant and consistent price and cost decline in the
market); Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Dynamic
Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from the
Republic of Korea; 58 FR 15467, 15476 (March 23, 1993) (determining
that the Department may use quarterly weighted-average costs where
there exists a consistent downward trend in both U.S. and home market
prices during the period); Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Erasable Programable Read Only Memories from Japan; 51 FR
39680, 39682 (October 30, 1986) (finding that significant changes in
the COP during a short period of time due to technological advancements
and changes in production process justified the use of quarterly
weighted-average costs).
We have reviewed the information on the record. CIL has not
demonstrated that the raw material price increases were significant
and/or consistent and would distort the margin calculation. Therefore,
we followed our normal practice of calculating a single weighted-
average cost for the POR.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of 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 during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.''
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the
POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we
also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales
of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Caribbean Ispat Ltd., dated July
5, 2005, on file in the Central Records Unit, room B099 of the main
Department building, for our calculation methodology and results.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for
inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In
addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale (``COS'') pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense)
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly
linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to NV were claimed
or allowed.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 of the Department's
regulations. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable
cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject
merchandise, using POR-average costs.
D. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV based on
[[Page 39994]]
sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP
transaction. 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 SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from
exporter to importer. For CEP transactions, it is the level of the
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
transactions, 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. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained
information from CIL about the marketing stages involved in the
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the
selling activities performed by CIL for each channel of distribution.
In identifying LOTs for EP and home market sales, we considered the
selling functions reflected in the starting price before any
adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses pursuant to
section 772(d) of the Act.
In the home market, CIL reported sales to end-users as its only
channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, CIL reported sales through
two channels of distribution, one involving sales made directly by CIL
to end-users and trading companies, and the second involving sales made
by CIL's affiliated U.S. resellers to end-users. We have determined
that the sales made by CIL directly to U.S. customers are EP sales and
those made by CIL's affiliated U.S. resellers constitute CEP sales.
We found the home market and EP sales to be at the same LOT. CIL's
EP sales and home market sales were both made primarily to end-users.
In both cases, the selling functions performed by CIL were almost
identical in both markets. Other than freight & delivery arrangement,
which was only provided for U.S. sales, in both markets CIL provided
services such as: strategic and economic planning, sales forecasting,
sales force development, solicitation of orders, technical advice,
price negotiation, processing purchase orders, invoicing, extending
credit, managing accounts receivable, and making arrangements for
warranties related to sales.
CIL makes CEP sales to the United States through its affiliates,
INA and Walker Wire. Sales through CIL's affiliates are normally made
to unrelated end-users in the U.S. market. However, because in our LOT
analysis for CEP sales we only consider the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction of the expenses incurred by
the U.S. affiliate, the record indicates that for CIL's CEP sales there
are substantially fewer services performed than the sales in its home
market. Therefore, we have determined that CIL's home market sales are
made at a more advanced stage of the marketing process than the CEP
sales to the affiliates and therefore are at a different LOT within the
meaning of 19 CFR 351.412.
Accordingly, when we compared CEP sales to home market sales, we
examined whether an LOT adjustment may be appropriate. As CIL sold at
only one LOT in the home market, there is no basis to determine that
there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs.
Further, we do not have information which would allow us to examine
pricing patterns of CIL's sales of other similar products, and there
are no other respondents or record evidence on which such an analysis
could be based.
Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for
making an LOT adjustment and the LOT of CIL's home market sales is at a
more advanced stage of marketing than the LOT of the CEP sales, we have
made a CEP offset to CIL's NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B)
of the Act. This offset is equal to the amount of indirect expenses
incurred in the home market not exceeding the amount of the deductions
made from the U.S. price in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the
Act.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales, as
obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October
1, 2003, through September 30, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caribbean Ispat Limited............................. 6.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of
publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of
the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are
requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the
public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will
issue the final results of this administrative review, which will
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the
subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this
administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates
calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above
0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions
directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by
applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise.
For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment
rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins
for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the
[[Page 39995]]
amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that
company's sales during the review period.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
company listed above will be the rate established in the final results
of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and,
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer
or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value
(``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for
the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 11.40
percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
See Wire Rod Orders.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of
antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-3690 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
