Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 53333-53339 [E5-4889]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices
and returns it to the Department of
Commerce.
III. Data
OMB Number: 0625–0040.
Form Number: ITA–334P.
Type of Review: Revision-Regular
Submission.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
16.
Estimated Time Per Response: 3 hour.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 48 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Costs: The
estimated annual cost for this collection
is $40,960 ($960 for respondents and
$40,000 for Federal government
(included are most administration costs
of program).
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on (a) whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and costs) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania. The period of the period
August 1, 2003, to July 31, 2004. We
preliminarily determine that sales of
subject merchandise by Ispat Sidex, S.A.
(now known as Mittal Steel Galati, S.A.
(‘‘MS Galati’’) 1) have been made below
normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties that submit
comments are requested to submit with
each argument (1) a statement of the
issue(s), and (2) a brief summary of the
argument(s). We will issue the final
results no later than 120 days from the
publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Edwards, John Drury or Abdelali
Elouaradia at (202) 482–8029, (202)
482–0195, and (202) 482–1374,
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:
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate From Romania: Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission
Background
On August 3, 2004, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain cutto-length carbon steel plate from
Romania for the period of August 1,
2003, through July 31, 2004. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 69 FR 46496
(August 3, 2004). On August 31, 2004,
the Department received four timely
requests for an administrative review of
this order. The Department received a
timely request from the International
Steel Group, Inc. (‘‘ISG’’), a domestic
interested party, requesting that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of shipments exported to the
United States from the following
Romanian plate producers/exporters: (1)
MS Galati, (2) Metalexportimport, S.A.
(‘‘MEI’’), (3) Metanef, S.A. (‘‘Metanef’’),
and (4) Combinatul de Oteluri Speciali
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
1 On June 21, 2005, we determined that MS Galati
was the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex, S.A.
See Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 70
FR 35624 (June 21, 2005).
Dated: September 2, 2005.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–17810 Filed 9–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–485–803]
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:25 Sep 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53333
Tirgoviste (‘‘COST’’). In addition, the
Department received a timely request
from MS Galati and Ispat North America
Inc. (‘‘INA’’), an exporter and U.S.
affiliated importer of subject
merchandise (collectively
‘‘respondents’’), requesting that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of subject merchandise exported
to the United States from producer MS
Galati. Also, the Department received a
timely request on behalf of IPSCO Steel
Inc. (‘‘IPSCO’’), a domestic producer,
requesting that the Department conduct
an administrative review of subject
merchandise produced by MS Galati
and exported from Romania by MEI.
Finally, the Department received a
timely request on behalf of Nucor
Corporation, a domestic producer,
requesting that the Department conduct
an administrative review of subject
merchandise exported by the following
Romanian plate producers/exporters: (1)
MS Galati, (2) MEI, (3) CSR SA Resita
(‘‘CSR’’), and (4) MINMET, S.A.
(‘‘MINMET’’).
On September 22, 2004, the
Department initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain cut-to-length carbon steel
plate from Romania, for the period
covering August 1, 2003, through July
31, 2004, to determine whether
merchandise imported into the United
States is being sold at less than NV. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004)
(‘‘Notice of Initiation’’).
On September 24, 2004, the
Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to the six abovereferenced Romanian companies. On
October 4, 2004, the Department
received a letter from Metanef stating
that it made no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. On October 8, 2004, MINMET
submitted a letter stating that it has
never shipped subject merchandise to
the United States, including during the
POR. On May 12, 2005, the Department
received a letter from COST stating that
it did not produce or make shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR.
On August 3, 2005, Nucor submitted a
letter withdrawing its request for review
of CSR. With regard to Metanef, CSR,
COST, and MINMET, we intend to
rescind this review based on the receipt
of a withdrawal of request for a review
and/or notification of no shipments
made during the POR. For a full
discussion of the intent to rescind with
respect to these companies, see the
‘‘Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part’’
section of this notice below.
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
53334
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices
On October 29, 2004 and November 1,
2004, we received Section A responses
from MS Galati and MEI, respectively.2
On December 1, 2004, MS Galati filed
its Section B and C questionnaire
responses and MEI stated in this same
filing that MEI did not have any home
market (‘‘HM’’) sales during the POR
and, thus, would not be filing a Section
B response.3 On February 28, 2005, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire regarding MS Galati’s
Sections A through C questionnaire
responses. On March 22, 2005, MS
Galati submitted its response to the
supplemental questionnaire. On June
16, 2005, the Department issued a
second supplemental questionnaire
with regard to Sections A through C. We
received MS Galati’s response to this
supplemental questionnaire on July 1,
2005. On July 6, 2005, MS Galati
submitted to the Department a revised
U.S. sales database as it identified a
programming error in the dataset when
it was submitted as part of its second
supplemental response.
On December 13, 2004, IPSCO
submitted allegations of sales below cost
of production (‘‘COP’’) against the
former Ispat Sidex, now Mittal Steel.
Upon a thorough review of IPSCO’s
allegation, the Department initiated a
sales-below-cost investigation on April
4, 2005, and instructed MS Galati to
respond to Section D of the
antidumping questionnaire. On April
27, 2005, the Department received MS
Galati’s Section D Response. On May 6,
2005, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire regarding
MS Galati’s section D questionnaire
response. On June 29, 2005, we received
MS Galati’s supplemental questionnaire
response. The Department requested
that MS Galati provide revised exhibits
for its supplemental response and those
exhibits were received on July 19, 2005.
See ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’
section of this notice below.
On April 15, 2005, due to the
complexity of the case and pursuant to
section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the
Department postponed the preliminary
results in this administrative review
until no later than August 31, 2005. See
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from Romania: Notice of Extension of
Preliminary Results for 2003–2004
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 19925 (April 15, 2005).
2 See
Department of Commerce Antidumping
Duty Questionnaire: Response to Section A of
Questionnaire, dated October 29, 2004.
3 See Department of Commerce Antidumping
Duty Questionnaire: Response to Sections B and C
of the Questionnaire, dated December 1, 2004.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:25 Sep 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
On August 5, 2005, and August 8,
2005, the Department issued a third
supplemental questionnaire regarding
MS Galati’s cost responses and a further
supplemental regarding MS Galati’s
model match hierarchy, respectively.
On August 17, 2005, MS Galati
submitted additional information on the
record confirming its date of sale
methodology. See section on ‘‘Date of
Sale’’ below. On August 17, 2005, the
Department received the response for
the cost supplemental questionnaire. On
August 22, 2005, the Department sent a
letter to MS Galati requesting specific
changes to its home market and U.S.
sales databases, based on the
verification findings and minor
corrections. See Letter to Mittal Steel
Galati, S.A. from Abdelali Elouaradia,
program manager, Request for New
Databases, dated August 22, 2005. On
August 24, 2005, the Department
received MS Galati’s response to the
model match supplemental
questionnaire. On August 25, 2005, the
Department received MS Galati’s
revised sales files as requested by the
Department.
Result of Changed Circumstances
Review: Successorship
On March 14, 2005, the Department
received a request from Ispat Sidex S.A.
to conduct a changed circumstances
review, as the company recently
changed its name to Mittal Steel Galati,
S.A. following the acquisition of its
parent, LNM Holdings, by the Mittal
Steel Group in early 2005. Pursuant to
Section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.216 of the Department’s regulations,
the Department initiated a changed
circumstance review to establish
whether Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. is the
successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex, S.A.
On May 3, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
Notice of Initiation and Preliminary
Results. See Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Romania:
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Changed Circustances Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 84
(May 3, 2005). We allowed a period for
public comment on our preliminary
results. No comments were received by
any interested party, and therefore the
Department issued its final results,
finding that Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. is
the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex,
S.A. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania, 70 FR 118 (June 21, 2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in
Part
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the
Department may rescind an
administrative review, in whole or only
with respect to a particular exporter or
producer, if the Secretary concludes
that, during the period covered by the
review, there were no entries, exports,
or sales of the subject merchandise. See
e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Taiwan: Notice of Preliminary Results
and Rescission in Part of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR
5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002) and
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Taiwan: Final Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001).
As discussed above, Metanef, MINMET,
and COST informed the Department that
they had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. We have confirmed this with
CBP. As also noted above, the
Department received a withdrawal of
the request for review from petitioner in
regard to CSR. Therefore, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (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 (Sept. 9, 2003) (‘‘2001–
2002 Rebar Review’’).
With regard to MEI, in the course of
this review, we have found that (a) MEI
is not the producer of subject
merchandise, (b) MEI does not take title
to the merchandise which MS Galati
exports through MEI, and (c) MS Galati
has knowledge of the destination of its
subject merchandise exports. Therefore,
the Department is concluding that MEI
had neither sales nor shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR,
and accordingly we are preliminarily
rescinding the review with respect to
MEI.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
include hot-rolled carbon steel universal
mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products
rolled on four faces or in a closed box
pass, of a width exceeding 150
millimeters but not exceeding 1,250
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices
millimeters and of a thickness of not
less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and
without patterns in relief), of
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated
nor coated with metal, whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances;
and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flatrolled products in straight lengths, of
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither
clad, plated, nor coated with metal,
whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances, 4.75
millimeters or more in thickness and of
a width which exceeds 150 millimeters
and measures at least twice the
thickness, as currently classifiable in the
HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000,
7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000,
7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000,
7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000,
7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,
7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000,
7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000,
7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and
7212.50.0000. Included under this order
are flat-rolled products of
nonrectangular cross-section where
such cross-section is achieved
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,
products which have been ‘‘worked
after rolling’’)—for example, products
which have been bevelled or rounded at
the edges. Excluded from this review is
grade X–70 plate. These HTS item
numbers are provided for convenience
and customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, and 19 C.F.R. 351.307 of the
Department’s regulations, we conducted
a sales verification of the questionnaire
responses of MS Galati and MS Galati’s
U.S. affiliate, INA. We used standard
verification procedures, including onsite inspection of MS Galati’s
production facility. Our verification
results are outlined in the following two
memoranda: (1) Memorandum to the
File, through Abdelali Elouaradia,
Program Manager, Verification of Home
Market and U.S. Sales Information
Submitted by Mittal Steel Galati S.A.
and Metalexportimport S.A., dated
August 9, 2004 (‘‘MS Galati Verification
Report’’); and (2) Memorandum to the
File, through Abdelali Elouaradia,
Program Manager, Verification of U.S.
Sales Information Submitted by Mittal
Steel Galati, S.A. (‘‘MS Galati’’), dated
August 22, 2004 (‘‘CEP Verification
Report’’). Public versions of these
reports are on file in the Central Records
Unit (CRU) located in room B–099 of the
Main Commerce Building.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:25 Sep 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions
pursuant to section 351.415 of the
Department’s regulations based on the
rates certified by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
Universe of Sales
In its Section C questionnaire
response to the Department, MS Galati
relied on two date of sale
methodologies. For the first seven
months of the POR, MS Galati reported
the date of invoice as the date of sale.
For the remaining five months of the
POR (i.e., March through July 2004), MS
Galati reported the order
acknowledgment date as the date of
sale. As a result, the universe of U.S.
sales reported to the Department
includes constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) sales with entry dates outside
of the POR. Consistent with the
Department’s practice and the
antidumping duty questionnaire issued
to MS Galati, dated September 24, 2004,
the Department bases its analysis on
‘‘each U.S. sale of merchandise entered
for consumption during the POR, except
* * * for CEP sales made after
importation * * *’’ where the
Department will base its analysis on
‘‘each transaction that has a date of sale
within the POR.’’ See Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the Netherlands, 69 FR 33630 (June 16,
2004); see also Circular Welded NonAlloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of
Korea, 63 FR 39071 (July 21, 1998).
Because all sales made by MS Galati to
the United States are back-to-back CEP
sales (i.e., the sales are made prior to
importation and the merchandise was
not taken into inventory upon entering
the United States, as verified by the
Department), we will only use entries of
subject merchandise made during the
POR. See Analysis Memo for further
discussion of MS Galati’s back-to-back
CEP sales; see also CEP Verification
Report, dated August 22, 2005, at pages
6 through 10.
Date of Sale
As stated in the ‘‘Universe of Sales’’
section above, MS Galati reported two
date of sale methodologies for its CEP
sales. In determining the appropriate
date of sale, the Department preference
is to use the date of invoice as the date
of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also,
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v.
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
(CIT 2001) (‘‘Allied Tube’’). Moreover,
the preamble to the Department’s
regulations expresses a strong
preference for the Department to choose
a single date of sale across the full
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53335
period of review. See Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final
Rule; 62 FR 27296, 27349 (May 19,
1997) (‘‘the Preamble’’).
At the verifications conducted at MS
Galati’s headquarters in Romania and in
Chicago at the headquarters of the U.S.
affiliate, INA, we found that, based on
sales documentation which the
Department verified, the terms of sale
changed between the order
acknowledgment and the invoice for
certain sales prior to March 2004.
Furthermore, we found that the
company will accept changes to the
terms of sale after March 2004, although
any change to the terms are
memorialized in the form of an
additional order acknowledgment.
Therefore, after reviewing the sales
process for U.S. sales for the full POR,
we find that sales terms were
susceptible to change, and in fact,
quantities changed in excess of the
allowable variations per the order
acknowledgment. For these preliminary
results, the Department will use the
invoice date as the appropriate date of
sale for the POR. Because the
Department is not including sales which
were entered into the United States after
the POR for margin calculation
purposes, and all of the reported sales
using order acknowledgment as the date
of sale entered after the POR, the issue
of reporting different date of sale
methodologies is no longer an issue in
this case. See Analysis Memo for further
discussion.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether MS Galati’s
sales of the subject merchandise from
Romania to the United States were made
at prices below NV, we compared the
CEP to the NV, as described in the
‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
MS Galati initially reported sales
directly to unaffiliated customers as
export price (‘‘EP sales’’) in the United
States, but we have disregarded those
sales in these preliminary results
because they appear to be of non-subject
merchandise outside of the scope of
these proceedings. For further
explanation, see Analysis Memo.
Therefore, pursuant to section
777A(d)(2), we compared the
constructed export prices of individual
U.S. transactions to the monthly
weighted-average normal value of the
foreign like product where there were
sales made in the ordinary course of
trade.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all products
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
53336
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices
covered by the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’
section above, which were produced
and sold by MS Galati in the home
market during the POR, to be foreign
like product for the purpose of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales of subject
merchandise. We relied on eight
characteristics to match U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to comparison
sales of the foreign like product (listed
in order of importance): (1) Painting; (2)
quality; (3) specification and/or grade;
(4) heat treatments; (5) standard
thickness; (6) standard width; (7)
whether or not checkered (floor plate);
and (8) descaling. Where there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the
home market to compare to U.S. sales,
we compared U.S. sales to the most
similar foreign like product on the basis
of the characteristics and reporting
instructions listed in the Department’s
questionnaire. See Appendix V of the
Department’s antidumping duty
questionnaire to MS Galati dated
September 24, 2004.
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, CEP is the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) in the United States
before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or
exporter of such merchandise or by a
seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as
adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d).
For purposes of this administrative
review, MS Galati has classified its sales
as both EP and CEP. However, as noted
in the ‘‘Fair Value Comparison’’ section,
MS Galati initially reported sales
directly to unaffiliated customers (i.e.,
EP sales) in the United States, but we
have disregarded those sales in this
preliminary determination as they
appear to be of merchandise not covered
by the scope of the order. MS Galati
identified one channel of distribution
for U.S. sales: MS Galati to MEI to INA
and then to unaffiliated U.S. customers,
who are distributors. See ‘‘Level of
Trade’’ section below for further
analysis.
For this sales channel, MS Galati has
reported these sales as CEP sales
because the first sale to an unaffiliated
party occurred in the United States.
Therefore, we based CEP on the packed
duty paid prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States, in
accordance with subsections 772(b), (c),
and (d) of the Act. Where applicable, we
made a deduction to gross unit price for
billing adjustments. We made
deductions for movement expenses in
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:25 Sep 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. These deductions included,
where appropriate, foreign inland
freight from the plant to the port of
export, foreign brokerage and handling,
international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S.
transportation expenses (i.e., U.S.
stevedoring, wharfage, and surveying),
and U.S. customs duty. In accordance
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we
deducted those selling expenses
associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States,
including direct selling expenses (i.e.,
imputed credit expenses, commissions,
and bank expenses) and indirect selling
expenses. For CEP sales, we also made
an adjustment for profit in accordance
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We
deducted the profit allocated to
expenses deducted under sections
772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) in accordance
with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the
Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of
the Act, we computed profit based on
total revenue realized on sales in both
the U.S. and home markets, less all
expenses associated with those sales.
We then allocated profit to expenses
incurred with respect to U.S. economic
activity, based on the ratio of total U.S.
expenses to total expenses for both the
U.S. and home markets.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
We compared the aggregate volume of
HM sales of the foreign like product and
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to
determine whether the volume of the
foreign like product sold in Romania
was sufficient, pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis
for NV. Because the volume of HM sales
of the foreign like product was greater
than five percent of the U.S. sales of
subject merchandise, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,
we have based the determination of NV
upon the HM sales of the foreign like
product. Thus, we used as NV the prices
at which the foreign like product was
first sold for consumption in Romania,
in the usual commercial quantities, in
the ordinary course of trade, and, to the
extent possible, at the same level of
trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the CEP sales, as
appropriate. After testing home market
viability, we calculated NV as noted in
the ‘‘Price-to-Price Comparisons’’
section of this notice.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Based on a cost allegation submitted
by the petitioner pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(d)(2)(ii), we found reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that MS
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Galati made sales of the foreign like
product at prices below the COP, as
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP
investigation of sales by MS Galati. See
Memorandum from John Drury and
Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, and
Ernest Gziryan, Case Accountant, to
Richard O. Weible, Office Director,
regarding Petitioner’s Allegation of
Sales Below the Cost of Production for
Ispat Sidex, S.A., April 4, 2005, on file
in the CRU. The Department has
conducted an investigation to determine
whether MS Galati made home market
sales at prices below their COP during
the POR within the meaning of section
773(b) of the Act. We conducted the
COP analysis in the ‘‘Calculation of Cost
of Production’’ section as described
below.
Because the Department initiated a
sales-below-cost investigation, we
instructed MS Galati to submit its
responses to Section D of the
Department’s Antidumping
Questionnaire. MS Galati submitted its
response to the Section D questionnaire
on April 27, 2005, and its response to
the Department’s Section D
Supplemental questionnaire of May 6,
2005, on June 29, 2005.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated a weightedaverage COP based on the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for
the home market general and
administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses,
interest expenses, and packing
expenses. We relied on the COP data
submitted by MS Galati in their cost
questionnaire responses with the
following exceptions:
—We adjusted the transfer prices for
certain inputs purchased from
affiliated suppliers pursuant to
section 773(f)(2) of the Act.
—We adjusted the reported depreciation
expense to reflect the 2003
revaluation of the company’s assets.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average
COP for MS Galati to its home-market
sales prices of the foreign like product,
as required under section 773(b) of the
Act, to determine whether these sales
had been made at prices below the COP
within an extended period of time (i.e.,
a period of one year) in substantial
quantities and whether such prices were
sufficient to permit the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time.
On a model-specific basis, we
compared the revised COP to the home
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices
market prices, less any applicable
movement charges and direct and
indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
We disregarded below-cost sales
where (1) 20 percent or more of MS
Galati’s sales of a given product during
the POR were made at prices below the
COP, and thus such sales were made
within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act, and (2) based on comparisons of
price to weighted-average COPs for the
POR, we determined that the below-cost
sales of the product were at prices
which would not permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable time period, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act. We found that MS Galati made
sales below cost and we disregarded
such sales where appropriate.
C. Arm’s-Length Test
MS Galati reported that it made sales
in the HM to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers. The Department did not
require MS Galati to report its affiliated
party’s downstream sales because these
sales represented less than five percent
of total HM sales. Sales to affiliated
customers in the HM not made at arm’s
length were excluded from our analysis.
To test whether these sales were made
at arm’s length, we compared the
starting prices of sales to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers net of all billing
adjustments, movement charges, direct
selling expenses, discounts and packing.
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, we determined that the sales
made to the affiliated party were at
arm’s length. See Antidumping
Proceedings—Affiliated Party Sales in
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR
69186 (November 15, 2002).
D. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We based NV on the HM sales to
unaffiliated purchasers and sales to
affiliated customers that passed the
arm’s length test. We made adjustments,
where appropriate, for physical
differences in the merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act. We made adjustments, where
applicable, for movement expenses (i.e.,
inland freight from plant to distribution
warehouse and warehousing expenses)
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)
of the Act. We made circumstance-ofsale adjustments for imputed credit,
where appropriate in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C). In accordance with
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:25 Sep 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
section 773(a)(6), we deducted HM
packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs. Finally, in accordance with
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where the
Department was unable to determine
NV on the basis of contemporaneous
matches in accordance with
773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV on CV.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on
sales in the comparison market at the
same level of trade LOT as the EP or
CEP transaction. See also 19 CFR
351.412 of the Department’s regulations.
The NV LOT is the level of the startingprice sales in the comparison market or,
when NV is based on CV, the level of
the sales from which we derive selling,
general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)
expenses and profits. For EP sales, the
U.S. LOT is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from the
exporter to the importer. For CEP sales,
the U.S. LOT is the level of the
constructed sale from the exporter to the
affiliated importer. See § 351.412(c)(1)
of the Department’s regulations. As
noted in the ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’
section above, we preliminarily find
that all of MS Galati’s sales through its
U.S. affiliates are appropriately
classified as CEP sales.
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than EP or CEP 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 than EP or CEP sales, and
the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences
between sales on which NV is based and
comparison market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make a 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
levels between NV and CEP affects price
comparability, we adjust NV under
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (‘‘the CEP
offset provision’’). See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes from
Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26,
2002); see also Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732
(November 19, 1997).
In analyzing the differences in selling
functions, we determine whether the
LOTs identified by the respondent are
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53337
meaningful. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the
claimed LOTs are the same, we expect
that the functions and activities of the
seller should be similar. Conversely, if
a party claims that LOTs are different
for different groups of sales, the
functions and activities of the seller
should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-onSteel Cookware from Mexico: Final
Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR
30068 (May 10, 2000).
To determine whether the comparison
market sales were at different stages in
the marketing process than the U.S.
sales, we reviewed the channels of
distribution in each market,4 including
selling functions, class of customer
(‘‘customer category’’), and the level of
selling expenses for each type of sale.
In this review, we obtained
information from MS Galati regarding
the marketing stages involved in sales to
the reported home and U.S. markets. MS
Galati reported that it sells to
unaffiliated distributors and end users
in the home market (i.e., Romania), as
well as to affiliated end users for
consumption and affiliated distributors.
In the United States, MS Galati had
sales to an affiliate, INA, that resold the
merchandise to unaffiliated customers.
MS Galati initially reported sales
directly to unaffiliated customers in the
United States, but we have disregarded
those sales in these preliminary results
as they appear to be of merchandise not
covered by the scope of the order.
MS Galati reported one LOT in the
home market with two channels of
distribution: (1) Direct sales to
customers, and (2) consignment sales.
Sales were made to two classes of
customers: (1) End users, and (2)
distributors. See MS Galati’s Section A
Questionnaire Response dated October
29, 2004, (‘‘AQR’’) at page 13 and
Appendix 5. See also MS Galati’s
second supplemental response of July 1,
2005, at Appendix 4 (‘‘Second
Supplemental Response’’) and its
Section B Questionnaire Response
(‘‘BQR’’) dated December 1, 2004, at
page 16. For some sales made in the
home market, MS Galati stored
merchandise at an affiliated warehouse.
MS Galati also had sales to affiliated
end users for consumption. See AQR at
page 3 and BQR at page 3. Based on our
4 The marketing process in the United States and
third country market begins with the producer and
extends to the sale to the final user or customer.
The chain of distribution between the two may have
many or few links, and the respondents’ sales occur
somewhere along this chain. In performing this
evaluation, we considered each respondent’s
narrative response to properly determine where in
the chain of distribution the sale occurs.
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
53338
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices
review of evidence on the record, we
find that home market sales through
both channels of distribution to both
customer categories, whether affiliated
or not, were substantially similar with
respect to selling functions and stages of
marketing. MS Galati performed the
same selling functions at the same level
for sales to all home market customers.
Accordingly, we preliminarily find that
MS Galati had only one LOT for its
home market sales.
MS Galati reported one EP LOT and
one CEP LOT with two channels of
distribution in the United States: (1)
Direct sales to end users and
distributors, and (2) direct sales by the
U.S. affiliate to end users and
distributors with merchandise shipped
directly from Romania. See AQR at A–
13. As previously noted in the ‘‘Fair
Value Comparison’’ section, we are
disregarding sales reported as EP sales
as we have preliminarily determined
such sales to be of merchandise not
covered by the scope of the order.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that MS Galati made CEP sales to the
United States through one channel of
distribution—direct sales to end users
and distributors.
For CEP sales, we consider only the
selling activities reflected in the price
after the deduction of expenses and CEP
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.
See Micron Technology Inc. v. United
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling
functions and services performed by MS
Galati on CEP sales, as described by MS
Galati in its Second Supplemental
Response, after these deductions. We
have determined that the selling
functions performed by MS Galati on all
CEP sales were identical. Accordingly,
because the selling functions provided
by MS Galati on all sales to its affiliate
in the United States are identical, we
preliminarily determine that there is
one CEP LOT in the U.S. market.
We then compared the selling
functions performed by MS Galati on its
CEP sales (after deductions) to the
selling functions provided in the home
market. We found that MS Galati
performs additional selling functions for
its home market sales to those it
provides to its affiliate INA. See Second
Supplemental Response dated July 1,
2005, at Appendix 3. According to
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP
offset is appropriate when the LOT in
the home market or third country
market is at a more advanced stage than
the LOT of the CEP sales. MS Galati
reported that it provided minimal
selling functions and services for the
CEP LOT and that, therefore, the home
market LOT is more advanced than the
CEP LOT. Based on our analysis of the
channels of distribution and selling
functions performed by MS Galati for
sales in the home market and CEP sales
in the U.S. market (i.e., sales support
and activities provided by MS Galati on
sales to its U.S. affiliate), we
preliminarily find that the home market
LOT is at a more advanced stage of
distribution when compared to CEP
sales because MS Galati provides many
selling functions in the home market at
a higher level of service as compared to
selling functions performed for its CEP
sales. See Second Supplemental
Response dated July 1, 2005, at
Appendix 3. Thus, we find that MS
Galati’s home market sales are at a more
advanced LOT than its CEP sales. There
was only one LOT in the home market,
there was no data available to determine
the existence of a pattern of price
differences, and we do not have any
other information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a LOT
adjustment. Therefore, we applied a
CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons.
To calculate the CEP offset, we
deducted the home market indirect
selling expenses from NV for home
market sales that were compared to U.S.
CEP sales. As such, we limited the home
market indirect selling expense
deduction by the amount of the indirect
selling expenses deducted in calculating
the CEP as required under section
772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
We note that although MEI was the
exporter for all of MS Galati’s sales,
because MS Galati provided information
that it had knowledge that the subject
merchandise was destined for the
United States, we have calculated a
margin solely for MS Galati as the
producer of subject merchandise. We
preliminarily determine that the
following margin is the weightedaverage dumping margin of the POR:
Manufacturer/exporter
POR
Mittal Steel Galati, S.A ................................................................................................................
For details on the calculation of the
antidumping duty weighted-average
margin for MS Galati and MEI, see the
Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of the
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania, dated August 31, 2004
(‘‘Analysis Memo’’). A public version of
this memorandum is on file in the CRU.
Assessment
Pursuant to section 351.212(b), the
Department calculates an assessment
rate for each importer of the subject
merchandise. Upon issuance of the final
results of this review, if any importerspecific assessment rates calculated in
the final results are above de minimis
(i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), the
Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP to assess
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:25 Sep 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer and dividing the
amount by the total value of the sales to
that importer. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results
of review, we will direct CBP to assess
the resulting rate against the total
quantity for the subject merchandise on
each of MS Galati’s importer’s entries
during the POR. Antidumping duties for
MEI, where the merchandise was not
produced by MS Galati, and for any
other rescinded companies, shall be
assessed at rates equal to the cash
deposit of estimated antidumping duties
required at the time of entry, or
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
08/01/03–07/31/04
Margin
48.90 percent.
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit rates will
be effective upon publication of the
final results of this review for all
shipments of certain cut-to-length
carbon steel plate from Romania
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject
merchandise produced by MS Galati,
the cash-deposit rate will be the rate
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), in which case the cash
deposit rate will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2005 / Notices
companies not covered in this review,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the original
less than fair value (LTFV)
investigation,5 but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established in the most recent period 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 the ‘‘all others’’ rate described in the
final results of this review. We note that
all subject merchandise produced by
MS Galati will be subject to MS Galati’s
cash deposit rate as established in the
final results, whether or not that
merchandise was exported by MEI.
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the
next administrative review. We note
that the cash deposit rate established in
the final results of this review will be
applied prospectively to cover future
entries.
Schedule for Final Results of Review
The Department will disclose
calculations performed in connection
with the preliminary results of this
review within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance
with § 351.224(b) of the Department’s
regulations. Case briefs for this review
must be submitted to the Department no
later than fourteen days after the date of
the final cost verification report issued
in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must
be filed seven days from the deadline
date for case briefs. Parties submitting
arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief
summary of the argument, and (3) a
table of authorities. Case and rebuttal
briefs and comments must be served on
interested parties in accordance with
§ 351.303(f) of the Department’s
regulations.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice in accordance with section
351.310(c) of the Department’s
regulations. Unless otherwise specified,
the hearing, if requested, will be held
two days after the date for submission
of rebuttal briefs, or the first business
day thereafter. Individuals who wish to
request a hearing must submit a written
request within 30 days of the
5 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from Romania, 58 FR 37209 (July 9, 1993).
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:25 Sep 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a
public hearing should contain: (1) The
party’s name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants;
and (3) to the extent practicable, an
identification of the arguments to be
raised at the hearing. If a hearing is
held, an interested party may make an
affirmative presentation only on
arguments included in that party’s case
brief and may make a rebuttal
presentation only on arguments
included in that party’s rebuttal brief.
Parties should confirm by telephone the
time, date, and place of the hearing
within 48 hours before the scheduled
time. The Department will issue the
final results of this review, which will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in the briefs, not later than
120 days after the date of publication of
this notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under § 351.402(f) of
the Department’s regulations to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during these review periods. 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.
This administrative review and this
notice are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: August 31, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–4889 Filed 9–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–855
Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC); Notice of Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review of
Antidumping Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
53339
September 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances M. Veith at (202) 482–4295,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping duty order on NonFrozen Apple Juice Concentrate from
the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset)
Reviews, 70 FR 22632. On the basis of
a Notice of Intent to Participate, and an
adequate substantive response filed on
behalf of domestic interested parties, as
well as a lack of response from
respondent interested parties, the
Department conducted an expedited
(120-day) sunset review pursuant to
section 751(c)(5)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c)(2). As a result of
the sunset review, the Department finds
that revocation of the antidumping duty
order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping.
The dumping margins are identified in
the Final Results of Review section of
this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 2, 2005, the Department
published the notice of initiation of the
sunset review of the antidumping duty
order on Non-Frozen Apple Juice
Concentrate from the PRC.1 On May 17,
2005, the Department received a Notice
of Intent to Participate from an
interested party, the U.S. Apple
Association (U.S. Apple) within the
deadline specified in section
315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s
regulations. U.S. Apple claimed
interested party status under section
771(9)(E) of the Act, as a trade
association representing all segments of
the apple industry. On June 1, 2005, the
Department received a complete
substantive response from U.S. Apple
within the deadline specified in section
351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department’s
regulations. We did not receive
responses from any respondent
interested parties to this proceeding. As
a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B)
of the Act and section
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the
Department’s regulations, the
Department determined to conduct an
expedited review of the order.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews,
70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005) (Initiation Notice).
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53333-53339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4889]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-485-803]
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania:
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania. The period of the period
August 1, 2003, to July 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that sales
of subject merchandise by Ispat Sidex, S.A. (now known as Mittal Steel
Galati, S.A. (``MS Galati'') \1\) have been made below normal value
(``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that
submit comments are requested to submit with each argument (1) a
statement of the issue(s), and (2) a brief summary of the argument(s).
We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the
publication of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On June 21, 2005, we determined that MS Galati was the
successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex, S.A. See Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 70 FR 35624
(June 21, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards, John Drury or
Abdelali Elouaradia at (202) 482-8029, (202) 482-0195, and (202) 482-
1374, 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:
Background
On August 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania for the period of
August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 46496 (August 3,
2004). On August 31, 2004, the Department received four timely requests
for an administrative review of this order. The Department received a
timely request from the International Steel Group, Inc. (``ISG''), a
domestic interested party, requesting that the Department conduct an
administrative review of shipments exported to the United States from
the following Romanian plate producers/exporters: (1) MS Galati, (2)
Metalexportimport, S.A. (``MEI''), (3) Metanef, S.A. (``Metanef''), and
(4) Combinatul de Oteluri Speciali Tirgoviste (``COST''). In addition,
the Department received a timely request from MS Galati and Ispat North
America Inc. (``INA''), an exporter and U.S. affiliated importer of
subject merchandise (collectively ``respondents''), requesting that the
Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise
exported to the United States from producer MS Galati. Also, the
Department received a timely request on behalf of IPSCO Steel Inc.
(``IPSCO''), a domestic producer, requesting that the Department
conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise produced by MS
Galati and exported from Romania by MEI. Finally, the Department
received a timely request on behalf of Nucor Corporation, a domestic
producer, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative
review of subject merchandise exported by the following Romanian plate
producers/exporters: (1) MS Galati, (2) MEI, (3) CSR SA Resita
(``CSR''), and (4) MINMET, S.A. (``MINMET'').
On September 22, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon
steel plate from Romania, for the period covering August 1, 2003,
through July 31, 2004, to determine whether merchandise imported into
the United States is being sold at less than NV. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request
for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004) (``Notice of
Initiation'').
On September 24, 2004, the Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to the six above-referenced Romanian companies. On
October 4, 2004, the Department received a letter from Metanef stating
that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR. On October 8, 2004, MINMET submitted a letter stating
that it has never shipped subject merchandise to the United States,
including during the POR. On May 12, 2005, the Department received a
letter from COST stating that it did not produce or make shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR. On August 3, 2005, Nucor submitted
a letter withdrawing its request for review of CSR. With regard to
Metanef, CSR, COST, and MINMET, we intend to rescind this review based
on the receipt of a withdrawal of request for a review and/or
notification of no shipments made during the POR. For a full discussion
of the intent to rescind with respect to these companies, see the
``Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part'' section of this notice below.
[[Page 53334]]
On October 29, 2004 and November 1, 2004, we received Section A
responses from MS Galati and MEI, respectively.\2\ On December 1, 2004,
MS Galati filed its Section B and C questionnaire responses and MEI
stated in this same filing that MEI did not have any home market
(``HM'') sales during the POR and, thus, would not be filing a Section
B response.\3\ On February 28, 2005, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's Sections A through C
questionnaire responses. On March 22, 2005, MS Galati submitted its
response to the supplemental questionnaire. On June 16, 2005, the
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire with regard to
Sections A through C. We received MS Galati's response to this
supplemental questionnaire on July 1, 2005. On July 6, 2005, MS Galati
submitted to the Department a revised U.S. sales database as it
identified a programming error in the dataset when it was submitted as
part of its second supplemental response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Department of Commerce Antidumping Duty Questionnaire:
Response to Section A of Questionnaire, dated October 29, 2004.
\3\ See Department of Commerce Antidumping Duty Questionnaire:
Response to Sections B and C of the Questionnaire, dated December 1,
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 13, 2004, IPSCO submitted allegations of sales below
cost of production (``COP'') against the former Ispat Sidex, now Mittal
Steel. Upon a thorough review of IPSCO's allegation, the Department
initiated a sales-below-cost investigation on April 4, 2005, and
instructed MS Galati to respond to Section D of the antidumping
questionnaire. On April 27, 2005, the Department received MS Galati's
Section D Response. On May 6, 2005, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's section D
questionnaire response. On June 29, 2005, we received MS Galati's
supplemental questionnaire response. The Department requested that MS
Galati provide revised exhibits for its supplemental response and those
exhibits were received on July 19, 2005. See ``Cost of Production
Analysis'' section of this notice below.
On April 15, 2005, due to the complexity of the case and pursuant
to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''), the Department postponed the preliminary results in this
administrative review until no later than August 31, 2005. See Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Extension of
Preliminary Results for 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 19925 (April 15, 2005).
On August 5, 2005, and August 8, 2005, the Department issued a
third supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's cost responses
and a further supplemental regarding MS Galati's model match hierarchy,
respectively. On August 17, 2005, MS Galati submitted additional
information on the record confirming its date of sale methodology. See
section on ``Date of Sale'' below. On August 17, 2005, the Department
received the response for the cost supplemental questionnaire. On
August 22, 2005, the Department sent a letter to MS Galati requesting
specific changes to its home market and U.S. sales databases, based on
the verification findings and minor corrections. See Letter to Mittal
Steel Galati, S.A. from Abdelali Elouaradia, program manager, Request
for New Databases, dated August 22, 2005. On August 24, 2005, the
Department received MS Galati's response to the model match
supplemental questionnaire. On August 25, 2005, the Department received
MS Galati's revised sales files as requested by the Department.
Result of Changed Circumstances Review: Successorship
On March 14, 2005, the Department received a request from Ispat
Sidex S.A. to conduct a changed circumstances review, as the company
recently changed its name to Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. following the
acquisition of its parent, LNM Holdings, by the Mittal Steel Group in
early 2005. Pursuant to Section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 of
the Department's regulations, the Department initiated a changed
circumstance review to establish whether Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. is
the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex, S.A. On May 3, 2005, the
Department published in the Federal Register a Notice of Initiation and
Preliminary Results. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circustances
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 84 (May 3, 2005). We
allowed a period for public comment on our preliminary results. No
comments were received by any interested party, and therefore the
Department issued its final results, finding that Mittal Steel Galati,
S.A. is the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex, S.A. See Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 70 FR 118 (June 21,
2005).
Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in Part
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an
administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular
exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the
period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales
of the subject merchandise. See e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Taiwan: Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7,
2002) and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18610 (April 10,
2001). As discussed above, Metanef, MINMET, and COST informed the
Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with CBP. As also
noted above, the Department received a withdrawal of the request for
review from petitioner in regard to CSR. Therefore, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (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 (Sept. 9, 2003)
(``2001-2002 Rebar Review'').
With regard to MEI, in the course of this review, we have found
that (a) MEI is not the producer of subject merchandise, (b) MEI does
not take title to the merchandise which MS Galati exports through MEI,
and (c) MS Galati has knowledge of the destination of its subject
merchandise exports. Therefore, the Department is concluding that MEI
had neither sales nor shipments of subject merchandise during the POR,
and accordingly we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect
to MEI.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel
universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces
or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not
exceeding 1,250
[[Page 53335]]
millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in
coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither
clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished,
or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain
hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or
other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and
of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice
the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers
7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000,
7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,
7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included under this order
are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such
cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,
products which have been ``worked after rolling'')--for example,
products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded
from this review is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description
remains dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, and 19 C.F.R. 351.307 of
the Department's regulations, we conducted a sales verification of the
questionnaire responses of MS Galati and MS Galati's U.S. affiliate,
INA. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site
inspection of MS Galati's production facility. Our verification results
are outlined in the following two memoranda: (1) Memorandum to the
File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of
Home Market and U.S. Sales Information Submitted by Mittal Steel Galati
S.A. and Metalexportimport S.A., dated August 9, 2004 (``MS Galati
Verification Report''); and (2) Memorandum to the File, through
Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of U.S. Sales
Information Submitted by Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (``MS Galati''),
dated August 22, 2004 (``CEP Verification Report''). Public versions of
these reports are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in
room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the
Department's regulations based on the rates certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Universe of Sales
In its Section C questionnaire response to the Department, MS
Galati relied on two date of sale methodologies. For the first seven
months of the POR, MS Galati reported the date of invoice as the date
of sale. For the remaining five months of the POR (i.e., March through
July 2004), MS Galati reported the order acknowledgment date as the
date of sale. As a result, the universe of U.S. sales reported to the
Department includes constructed export price (``CEP'') sales with entry
dates outside of the POR. Consistent with the Department's practice and
the antidumping duty questionnaire issued to MS Galati, dated September
24, 2004, the Department bases its analysis on ``each U.S. sale of
merchandise entered for consumption during the POR, except * * * for
CEP sales made after importation * * *'' where the Department will base
its analysis on ``each transaction that has a date of sale within the
POR.'' See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
Netherlands, 69 FR 33630 (June 16, 2004); see also Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 39071 (July 21,
1998). Because all sales made by MS Galati to the United States are
back-to-back CEP sales (i.e., the sales are made prior to importation
and the merchandise was not taken into inventory upon entering the
United States, as verified by the Department), we will only use entries
of subject merchandise made during the POR. See Analysis Memo for
further discussion of MS Galati's back-to-back CEP sales; see also CEP
Verification Report, dated August 22, 2005, at pages 6 through 10.
Date of Sale
As stated in the ``Universe of Sales'' section above, MS Galati
reported two date of sale methodologies for its CEP sales. In
determining the appropriate date of sale, the Department preference is
to use the date of invoice as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i);
see also, Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1087 (CIT 2001) (``Allied Tube''). Moreover, the preamble to the
Department's regulations expresses a strong preference for the
Department to choose a single date of sale across the full period of
review. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule; 62
FR 27296, 27349 (May 19, 1997) (``the Preamble'').
At the verifications conducted at MS Galati's headquarters in
Romania and in Chicago at the headquarters of the U.S. affiliate, INA,
we found that, based on sales documentation which the Department
verified, the terms of sale changed between the order acknowledgment
and the invoice for certain sales prior to March 2004. Furthermore, we
found that the company will accept changes to the terms of sale after
March 2004, although any change to the terms are memorialized in the
form of an additional order acknowledgment. Therefore, after reviewing
the sales process for U.S. sales for the full POR, we find that sales
terms were susceptible to change, and in fact, quantities changed in
excess of the allowable variations per the order acknowledgment. For
these preliminary results, the Department will use the invoice date as
the appropriate date of sale for the POR. Because the Department is not
including sales which were entered into the United States after the POR
for margin calculation purposes, and all of the reported sales using
order acknowledgment as the date of sale entered after the POR, the
issue of reporting different date of sale methodologies is no longer an
issue in this case. See Analysis Memo for further discussion.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether MS Galati's sales of the subject merchandise
from Romania to the United States were made at prices below NV, we
compared the CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. MS Galati
initially reported sales directly to unaffiliated customers as export
price (``EP sales'') in the United States, but we have disregarded
those sales in these preliminary results because they appear to be of
non-subject merchandise outside of the scope of these proceedings. For
further explanation, see Analysis Memo.
Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we compared the
constructed export prices of individual U.S. transactions to the
monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where
there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products
[[Page 53336]]
covered by the ``Scope of the Order'' section above, which were
produced and sold by MS Galati in the home market during the POR, to be
foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We relied on eight
characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to
comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of
importance): (1) Painting; (2) quality; (3) specification and/or grade;
(4) heat treatments; (5) standard thickness; (6) standard width; (7)
whether or not checkered (floor plate); and (8) descaling. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like
product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions
listed in the Department's questionnaire. See Appendix V of the
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to MS Galati dated
September 24, 2004.
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and
(d). For purposes of this administrative review, MS Galati has
classified its sales as both EP and CEP. However, as noted in the
``Fair Value Comparison'' section, MS Galati initially reported sales
directly to unaffiliated customers (i.e., EP sales) in the United
States, but we have disregarded those sales in this preliminary
determination as they appear to be of merchandise not covered by the
scope of the order. MS Galati identified one channel of distribution
for U.S. sales: MS Galati to MEI to INA and then to unaffiliated U.S.
customers, who are distributors. See ``Level of Trade'' section below
for further analysis.
For this sales channel, MS Galati has reported these sales as CEP
sales because the first sale to an unaffiliated party occurred in the
United States. Therefore, we based CEP on the packed duty paid prices
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, in accordance with
subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act. Where applicable, we made
a deduction to gross unit price for billing adjustments. We made
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate,
foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign
brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S.
brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses (i.e., U.S.
stevedoring, wharfage, and surveying), and U.S. customs duty. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United
States, including direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit
expenses, commissions, and bank expenses) and indirect selling
expenses. For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit
allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2)
in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In
accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on
total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less
all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and
home markets.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
We compared the aggregate volume of HM sales of the foreign like
product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether
the volume of the foreign like product sold in Romania was sufficient,
pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis for NV.
Because the volume of HM sales of the foreign like product was greater
than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based the
determination of NV upon the HM sales of the foreign like product.
Thus, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was
first sold for consumption in Romania, in the usual commercial
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent
possible, at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the CEP sales, as
appropriate. After testing home market viability, we calculated NV as
noted in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section of this notice.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Based on a cost allegation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to
19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(ii), we found reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that MS Galati made sales of the foreign like product at prices
below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP
investigation of sales by MS Galati. See Memorandum from John Drury and
Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, and Ernest Gziryan, Case Accountant, to
Richard O. Weible, Office Director, regarding Petitioner's Allegation
of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Ispat Sidex, S.A., April 4,
2005, on file in the CRU. The Department has conducted an investigation
to determine whether MS Galati made home market sales at prices below
their COP during the POR within the meaning of section 773(b) of the
Act. We conducted the COP analysis in the ``Calculation of Cost of
Production'' section as described below.
Because the Department initiated a sales-below-cost investigation,
we instructed MS Galati to submit its responses to Section D of the
Department's Antidumping Questionnaire. MS Galati submitted its
response to the Section D questionnaire on April 27, 2005, and its
response to the Department's Section D Supplemental questionnaire of
May 6, 2005, on June 29, 2005.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home
market general and administrative (``G&A'') expenses, interest
expenses, and packing expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by
MS Galati in their cost questionnaire responses with the following
exceptions:
--We adjusted the transfer prices for certain inputs purchased from
affiliated suppliers pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act.
--We adjusted the reported depreciation expense to reflect the 2003
revaluation of the company's assets.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average COP for MS Galati to its home-
market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a
period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices
were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time.
On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the home
[[Page 53337]]
market prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and
indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of MS
Galati's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices
below the COP, and thus such sales were made within an extended period
of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price
to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost
sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of
all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that MS Galati made sales below cost
and we disregarded such sales where appropriate.
C. Arm's-Length Test
MS Galati reported that it made sales in the HM to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers. The Department did not require MS Galati to
report its affiliated party's downstream sales because these sales
represented less than five percent of total HM sales. Sales to
affiliated customers in the HM not made at arm's length were excluded
from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's
length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, movement
charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. 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, we determined that
the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See
Antidumping Proceedings--Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course
of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002).
D. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We based NV on the HM sales to unaffiliated purchasers and sales to
affiliated customers that passed the arm's length test. We made
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We
made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses (i.e., inland
freight from plant to distribution warehouse and warehousing expenses)
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for imputed credit, where appropriate
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C). In accordance with section
773(a)(6), we deducted HM packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where the
Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of contemporaneous
matches in accordance with 773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV on CV.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade LOT as the EP or CEP transaction. See
also 19 CFR 351.412 of the Department's regulations. The NV LOT is the
level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV
is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive selling,
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profits. For EP
sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which
is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, the U.S.
LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the
affiliated importer. See Sec. 351.412(c)(1) of the Department's
regulations. As noted in the ``Constructed Export Price'' section
above, we preliminarily find that all of MS Galati's sales through its
U.S. affiliates are appropriately classified as CEP sales.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
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 than EP or CEP sales, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between sales on which NV is based and comparison market
sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a 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 levels between NV and
CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (``the CEP offset provision''). See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes
from Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); see also Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19,
1997).
In analyzing the differences in selling functions, we determine
whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296,
27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that
the functions and activities of the seller should be similar.
Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different
groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be
dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results
of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000).
To determine whether the comparison market sales were at different
stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the
channels of distribution in each market,\4\ including selling
functions, class of customer (``customer category''), and the level of
selling expenses for each type of sale.
In this review, we obtained information from MS Galati regarding
the marketing stages involved in sales to the reported home and U.S.
markets. MS Galati reported that it sells to unaffiliated distributors
and end users in the home market (i.e., Romania), as well as to
affiliated end users for consumption and affiliated distributors. In
the United States, MS Galati had sales to an affiliate, INA, that
resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. MS Galati initially
reported sales directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States,
but we have disregarded those sales in these preliminary results as
they appear to be of merchandise not covered by the scope of the order.
MS Galati reported one LOT in the home market with two channels of
distribution: (1) Direct sales to customers, and (2) consignment sales.
Sales were made to two classes of customers: (1) End users, and (2)
distributors. See MS Galati's Section A Questionnaire Response dated
October 29, 2004, (``AQR'') at page 13 and Appendix 5. See also MS
Galati's second supplemental response of July 1, 2005, at Appendix 4
(``Second Supplemental Response'') and its Section B Questionnaire
Response (``BQR'') dated December 1, 2004, at page 16. For some sales
made in the home market, MS Galati stored merchandise at an affiliated
warehouse. MS Galati also had sales to affiliated end users for
consumption. See AQR at page 3 and BQR at page 3. Based on our
[[Page 53338]]
review of evidence on the record, we find that home market sales
through both channels of distribution to both customer categories,
whether affiliated or not, were substantially similar with respect to
selling functions and stages of marketing. MS Galati performed the same
selling functions at the same level for sales to all home market
customers. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that MS Galati had only
one LOT for its home market sales.
MS Galati reported one EP LOT and one CEP LOT with two channels of
distribution in the United States: (1) Direct sales to end users and
distributors, and (2) direct sales by the U.S. affiliate to end users
and distributors with merchandise shipped directly from Romania. See
AQR at A-13. As previously noted in the ``Fair Value Comparison''
section, we are disregarding sales reported as EP sales as we have
preliminarily determined such sales to be of merchandise not covered by
the scope of the order. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that MS
Galati made CEP sales to the United States through one channel of
distribution--direct sales to end users and distributors.
For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in
the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section
772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States, 243
F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling
functions and services performed by MS Galati on CEP sales, as
described by MS Galati in its Second Supplemental Response, after these
deductions. We have determined that the selling functions performed by
MS Galati on all CEP sales were identical. Accordingly, because the
selling functions provided by MS Galati on all sales to its affiliate
in the United States are identical, we preliminarily determine that
there is one CEP LOT in the U.S. market.
We then compared the selling functions performed by MS Galati on
its CEP sales (after deductions) to the selling functions provided in
the home market. We found that MS Galati performs additional selling
functions for its home market sales to those it provides to its
affiliate INA. See Second Supplemental Response dated July 1, 2005, at
Appendix 3. According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset
is appropriate when the LOT in the home market or third country market
is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP sales. MS Galati
reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for
the CEP LOT and that, therefore, the home market LOT is more advanced
than the CEP LOT. Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution
and selling functions performed by MS Galati for sales in the home
market and CEP sales in the U.S. market (i.e., sales support and
activities provided by MS Galati on sales to its U.S. affiliate), we
preliminarily find that the home market LOT is at a more advanced stage
of distribution when compared to CEP sales because MS Galati provides
many selling functions in the home market at a higher level of service
as compared to selling functions performed for its CEP sales. See
Second Supplemental Response dated July 1, 2005, at Appendix 3. Thus,
we find that MS Galati's home market sales are at a more advanced LOT
than its CEP sales. There was only one LOT in the home market, there
was no data available to determine the existence of a pattern of price
differences, and we do not have any other information that provides an
appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Therefore, we
applied a CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons.
To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home market indirect
selling expenses from NV for home market sales that were compared to
U.S. CEP sales. As such, we limited the home market indirect selling
expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses
deducted in calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D)
of the Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
We note that although MEI was the exporter for all of MS Galati's
sales, because MS Galati provided information that it had knowledge
that the subject merchandise was destined for the United States, we
have calculated a margin solely for MS Galati as the producer of
subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that the following
margin is the weighted-average dumping margin of the POR:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter POR Margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mittal Steel Galati, S.A.................... 08/01/03-07/31/04 48.90 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for MS Galati and MEI, see the Analysis Memorandum for
the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania,
dated August 31, 2004 (``Analysis Memo''). A public version of this
memorandum is on file in the CRU.
Assessment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The marketing process in the United States and third country
market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final
user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have
many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along
this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 351.212(b), the Department calculates an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon
issuance of the final results of this review, if any importer-specific
assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis
(i.e., at or above 0.50 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 duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer
and dividing the amount by the total value of the sales to that
importer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results
of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the
total quantity for the subject merchandise on each of MS Galati's
importer's entries during the POR. Antidumping duties for MEI, where
the merchandise was not produced by MS Galati, and for any other
rescinded companies, shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash
deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry,
or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication
of the final results of this review for all shipments of certain cut-
to-length carbon steel plate from Romania entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided
for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise
produced by MS Galati, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate
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), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;
(2) for previously reviewed or investigated
[[Page 53339]]
companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the original less than fair value (LTFV)
investigation,\5\ but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established in the most recent period 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 the ``all others''
rate described in the final results of this review. We note that all
subject merchandise produced by MS Galati will be subject to MS
Galati's cash deposit rate as established in the final results, whether
or not that merchandise was exported by MEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 58 FR 37209
(July 9, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review. We note that the cash deposit rate established in the final
results of this review will be applied prospectively to cover future
entries.
Schedule for Final Results of Review
The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the
date of publication of this notice in accordance with Sec. 351.224(b)
of the Department's regulations. Case briefs for this review must be
submitted to the Department no later than fourteen days after the date
of the final cost verification report issued in this proceeding.
Rebuttal briefs must be filed seven days from the deadline date for
case briefs. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue,
(2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
Case and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on interested
parties in accordance with Sec. 351.303(f) of the Department's
regulations.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the
Department's regulations. Unless otherwise specified, the hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs, or the first business day thereafter. Individuals who
wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1)
The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of
the arguments to be raised at the hearing. If a hearing is held, an
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments
included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal
presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief.
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the
hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will
issue the final results of this review, which will include the results
of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under Sec. 351.402(f) of the Department's
regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during
these review periods. 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.
This administrative review and this notice are published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 31, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4889 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P