Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part, 67665-67668 [05-22242]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices
Imports of the products covered by this
order are currently classifiable under
the following Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) subheadings:
7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,
7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40,
7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and
7306.30.50.90.
Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of this order is dispositive.
Taiwan -- Circular Welded Non–Alloy
Steel Pipe and Tube (A–583–814)
The products covered by this order are
(1) circular welded non–alloy steel
pipes and tubes, of circular cross section
over 114.3 millimeters (4.5 inches), but
not over 406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in
outside diameter, with a wall thickness
of 1.65 millimeters (0.065 inches) or
more, regardless of surface finish (black,
galvanized, or painted), or end–finish
(plain end, beveled end, threaded, or
threaded and coupled); and (2) circular
welded non–alloy steel pipes and tubes,
of circular cross–section less than 406.4
millimeters (16 inches), with a wall
thickness of less than 1.65 millimeters
(0.065 inches), regardless of surface
finish (black, galvanized, or painted) or
end–finish (plain end, beveled end,
threaded, or threaded and coupled).
These pipes and tubes are generally
known as standard pipes and tubes and
are intended for the low pressure
conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,
air, and other liquids and gases in
plumbing and heating systems, air
conditioning units, automatic sprinkling
systems, and other related uses, and
generally meet ASTM A–53
specifications. Standard pipe may also
be used for light load–bearing
applications, such as for fence–tubing
and as structural pipe tubing used for
framing and support members for
construction, or load–bearing purposes
in the construction, shipbuilding,
trucking, farm–equipment, and related
industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is
also included in this order. All carbon
steel pipes and tubes within the
physical description outlined above are
included within the scope of this
investigation, except line pipe, oil
country tubular goods, boiler tubing,
mechanical tubing, pipe and tube
hollows for redraws, finished
scaffolding, and finished conduit.
Standard pipe that is dual or triple
certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as
line pipe of a kind or used for oil and
gas pipelines is also not included in this
investigation.
Imports of the products covered by this
order are currently classifiable under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Nov 07, 2005
Jkt 208001
the following Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) subheadings,
7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,
7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40,
7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85,
7306.30.50.90.
Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 05–22241 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–489–807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Turkey; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination To Revoke in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 6, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar)
from Turkey (70 FR 23990). This review
covers four producers/exporters of the
subject merchandise to the United
States. The period of review (POR) is
April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004.
We are rescinding the review with
respect to 18 companies because they
had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. In addition, we have
determined to revoke the antidumping
duty order with respect to an additional
exporter, ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve
Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS).
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
changes in the margin calculations.
Therefore, the final results differ from
the preliminary results. The final
weighted–average dumping margins for
the reviewed firms are listed below in
the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of
Review.’’
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
November 8, 2005.
Irina
Itkin or Alice Gibbons, Office of AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone (202) 482–0656 and (202)
482–0498, respectively.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67665
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This review covers the following four
producers/exporters: Colakoglu
Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret
(collectively ‘‘Colakoglu’’); Diler Demir
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and
Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively
‘‘Diler’’); Habas Tibbi ve Sinai Gazlar
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and
ICDAS.
On May 6, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on rebar from Turkey. See Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey;
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of
Intent To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 23990
(May 6, 2005) (Preliminary Results).
Prior to the preliminary results, the
following companies informed the
Department that they had no shipments
to the United States during the POR:
Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S.
(Cebitas); Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas); Demirsan
Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(Demirsan); Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik); Ekinciler
Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik
San A.S. (collectively ‘‘Ekinciler’’);
Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co.
(Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi
A.S. (Izmir); Kaptan Demir Celik
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan);
Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk
A.S. (Metas); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan Celik
Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan);
Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri A.S.
(Sivas); and Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi
A.S. (Tosyali). We reviewed U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data and confirmed that there were no
entries of subject merchandise from any
of these companies. We also confirmed
with CBP data that Ege Metal Demir
Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal);
Kardemir--Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk); Kroman Celik
Sanayi A.S. (Kroman); Kurum Demir
Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S.
(Kurum); and Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Ucel) did not have entries
of subject merchandise during the POR.
Consequently, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with
our practice, we are rescinding our
review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan,
Ege Celik, Ege Metal, Ekinciler,
Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk,
Kroman, Kurum, Metas, Nurmet,
Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. For
further discussion, see the ‘‘Partial
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
67666
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices
Rescission of Review’’ section of this
notice, below.
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results of review. In June
and July 2005, we received case briefs
from the petitioners (i.e., Gerdau
AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial
Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and
Nucor Corporation), Diler, Habas, and
ICDAS, and rebuttal briefs from the
petitioners, Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and
ICDAS.
The Department has conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all stock deformed steel concrete
reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths
and coils. This includes all hot–rolled
deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,
rail steel, axle steel, or low–alloy steel.
It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii)
rebar that a processor has further
worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated
rebar. Deformed rebar is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under item numbers 7213.10.000 and
7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2003, through
March 31, 2004.
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas,
Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal,
Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan,
Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas,
Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and
Ucel had no shipments and/or entries of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. We have
confirmed this with CBP data.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the
Department’s practice, we are
rescinding our review with respect to
these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey;
Final Results, Rescission of
Antidumping Administrative Review in
Part, and Determination Not to Revoke
in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8,
2004) (2002–2003 Rebar Final).
Determination To Revoke Order, in
Part
The Department may revoke, in whole
or in part, an antidumping duty order
upon completion of a review under
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). While Congress has
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Nov 07, 2005
Jkt 208001
not specified the procedures that the
Department must follow in revoking an
order, the Department has developed a
procedure for revocation that is
described in 19 CFR 351.222. This
regulation requires, inter alia, that a
company requesting revocation must
submit the following: (1) A certification
that the company has sold the subject
merchandise at not less than normal
value (NV) in the current review period
and that the company will not sell
subject merchandise at less than NV in
the future; (2) a certification that the
company sold commercial quantities of
the subject merchandise to the United
States in each of the three years forming
the basis of the request; and (3) an
agreement to immediate reinstatement
of the order if the Department concludes
that the company, subsequent to the
revocation, sold subject merchandise at
less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
Upon receipt of such a request, the
Department will consider: (1) Whether
the company in question has sold
subject merchandise at not less than NV
for a period of at least three consecutive
years; (2) whether the company has
agreed in writing to its immediate
reinstatement in the order, as long as
any exporter or producer is subject to
the order, if the Department concludes
that the company, subsequent to the
revocation, sold the subject
merchandise at less than NV; and (3)
whether the continued application of
the antidumping duty order is otherwise
necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2)(i). See Sebacic Acid From
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and
Determination To Revoke Order in Part,
67 FR 69719, 69720 (Nov. 19, 2002).
We have determined that the request
from ICDAS meets all of the criteria
under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to
the criteria of subsection 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), our final margin
calculations show that ICDAS sold rebar
at not less than NV during the current
review period. In addition, ICDAS sold
rebar at not less than NV in the two
previous administrative reviews in
which it was involved (i.e., ICDAS’s
dumping margin was zero or de
minimis). See 2002–2003 Rebar Final
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 (Sept. 9, 2003). Also, we find
that application of the antidumping
duty order to ICDAS is no longer
warranted for the following reasons: (1)
the company had zero or de minimis
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
margins for a period of at least three
consecutive years; (2) the company has
agreed to immediate reinstatement of
the order if the Department finds that it
has resumed making sales at less than
NV; and (3) the continued application of
the order is not otherwise necessary to
offset dumping. For further discussion,
see Comment 18 of the accompanying
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’
(Decision Memo) from Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to Joseph A.
Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated November
2, 2005. Therefore, we find that ICDAS
qualifies for revocation of the
antidumping duty order on rebar under
19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Accordingly, we
are revoking the order with respect to
subject merchandise produced and
exported by ICDAS.
Effective Date of Revocation
This revocation applies to all entries
of subject merchandise that are
produced and exported by ICDAS, and
are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
April 1, 2004. The Department will
order the suspension of liquidation
ended for all such entries and will
instruct CBP to release any cash
deposits or bonds. The Department will
further instruct CBP to refund with
interest any cash deposits on entries
made on or after April 1, 2004.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, we conducted an investigation
to determine whether the respondents
participating in the review made home
market sales of the foreign like product
during the POR at prices below their
costs of production (COP) within the
meaning
of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We
performed the cost test for these final
results following the same methodology
as in the Preliminary Results, except as
discussed in the Decision Memo.
We found 20 percent or more of each
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the reporting period were at
prices less than the weighted–average
COP for this period. Thus, we
determined that these below–cost sales
were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’
within an extended period of time and
at prices which did not permit the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in the normal course of
trade. See section 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of
the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of these final
results, we found that Colakoglu, Diler,
Habas and ICDAS made below–cost
sales not in the ordinary course of trade.
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices
Consequently, we disregarded these
sales for each respondent and used the
remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by
parties to this administrative review and
to which we have responded are listed
in the Appendix to this notice and
addressed in the Decision Memo, which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, room B–099,
of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have made certain changes
in the margin calculations. These
changes are discussed in the relevant
sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
weighted–average margin percentages
exist for the period April 1, 2003,
through March 31, 2004:
Manufacturer/producer/
exporter
Margin percentage
Colakoglu ......................
Diler ..............................
Habas ...........................
ICDAS ...........................
0.00
0.31
26.07
0.16
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all of Habas’s
sales and certain of ICDAS’s sales and
because we have the reported entered
value of the U.S. sales, we have
calculated importer–specific assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those sales.
Regarding all of Colakoglu’s and
Diler’s sales, as well as certain of
ICDAS’s sales, we note that these
companies did not report the entered
value for the U.S. sales in question.
Accordingly, we have calculated
importer–specific assessment rates for
the merchandise in question by
aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer and dividing this amount by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Nov 07, 2005
Jkt 208001
the total quantity of those sales. To
determine whether the duty assessment
rates were de minimis, in accordance
with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–
specific ad valorem ratios based on the
export prices.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
will instruct CBP to liquidate without
regard to antidumping duties any
entries for which the assessment rate is
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because we have revoked the order
with respect to subject merchandise
produced and exported by ICDAS, we
will order CBP to terminate the
suspension of liquidation for exports of
such merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after April 1, 2004,
and to refund all cash deposits
collected.
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of
this notice of final results of
administrative review for all shipments
of rebar from Turkey (except shipments
from ICDAS noted above) entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) The cash deposit
rates for the reviewed companies will be
the rates indicated above (except for
ICDAS and Diler, whose weighted–
average margins are de minimis, where
no cash deposit will be required); 2) for
previously investigated companies not
listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate published for the most recent
period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, or in the less–
than-fair–value (LTFV) investigation,
but the manufacturer is, then the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established
for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4)
the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 16.06 percent, the all
others rate established in the LTFV
investigation.
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67667
review period. Failure to comply with
this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
notification of return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this
determination and notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the
Act.
Dated: November 2, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix Issues in Decision
Memorandum
General Issues
1. Cost Averaging Periods for Habas and
ICDAS
2. Depreciation Expenses
3. Matching Criteria
4. Exchange Rates
5. Universe of Sales
6. Date of Sale for Habas and ICDAS
7. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary
Results
Company–Specific Issues
8. Cost of Billets for Colakoglu
9. Financing Expenses for Colakoglu
10. Movement Expenses Provided by an
Affiliate of Diler
11. Affiliated Party Billet Purchases for
Diler
12. Edge and Defective Rebar Offsets to
Cost of Manufacturing (COM) for Diler
13. Offsets to General and
Administrative (G&A) Expenses for
Diler
14. Denominator of the G&A and
Interest Expense Calculations for Diler
15. Interest Expense Calculation for
Diler
16. Omitted Costs for Diler
17. Offsets to G&A Expenses for Habas
18. Revocation for ICDAS
19. Affiliated Party Sales in ICDAS’s
Home Market
20. Arm’s–Length Test for ICDAS
21. Level of Trade (LOT) for ICDAS
22. Whether to Treat ICDAS’s U.S. Sales
as Export Price (EP) or Constructed
Export Price (CEP) Sales
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
67668
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices
23. Collapsing Issue for ICDAS
24. Startup Adjustment for ICDAS
25. Gain on Sale of Ship for ICDAS
26. Calculation of G&A Expenses for
ICDAS
27. Exchange Rate Gains for ICDAS
[FR Doc. 05–22242 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–601
Notice of Extension of Final Results of
the 2003–2004 Administrative Review
of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from
the People’s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Bolling or Laurel LaCivita, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3434 and (202)
482–4243, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Dated: November 2, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–22251 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–533–844, C–560–819)
Certain Lined Paper Products from
India and Indonesia: Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Determinations in
the Countervailing Duty Investigations
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
Background
On July 11, 2005, the Department
published the preliminary results of
review and partial rescission of this
administrative review of TRBs from the
PRC. See Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished,
from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice
of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744
(July 11, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
In the Preliminary Results we stated that
we would make our final determination
for the antidumping duty review no
later than 120 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary results
(i.e., November 8, 2005).
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results
The Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) is extending the time
limit for the final results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on tapered
roller bearings and parts thereof,
finished and unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
This review covers the period June 1,
2003, through May 31, 2004.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act states
that if it is not practicable to complete
the review within the time specified, the
administering authority may extend the
120-day period, following the date of
publication of the preliminary results, to
issue its final results by an additional 60
days. Completion of the final results
within the 120-day period is not
practicable due to issues arising from
verification.
Therefore, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department
is extending the time period for issuing
the final results of review by an
additional sixty days until no later than
January 7, 2006.
16:11 Nov 07, 2005
Jkt 208001
EFFECTIVE DATE:
November 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maura Jeffords or Robert Copyak (India),
and David Layton or David Neubacher
(Indonesia) AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3146 or (202) 482–
2209, and (202) 482–0371 or (202) 482–
5823, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 29, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) initiated the
countervailing duty investigations of
lined paper products from India and
Indonesia. See Notice of Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation:
Certain Lined Paper Products from India
and Indonesia, 70 FR 58690 (October 7,
2005). Currently, the preliminary
determinations are due no later than
December 5, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Extension of Due Date for Preliminary
Determination
On October 20, 2005, the Association
of American School Paper Suppliers
(‘‘Petitioner’’) submitted a letter
requesting that the Department
postpone the preliminary
determinations of the countervailing
duty investigations of certain lined
paper products from India and
Indonesia by 65 days. Under section
703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department
may extend the period for reaching a
preliminary determination in a
countervailing duty investigation until
not later than the 130th day after the
date on which the administering
authority initiates an investigation if the
petitioner makes a timely request for an
extension of the period within which
the determination must be made under
subsection (b) (section 703(b) of the
Act). Accordingly, we are extending the
due date for the preliminary
determinations by 65 days to no later
than February 6, 2006.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act.
Dated: November 1, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–22243 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Availability of Seats for the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Advisory Council
National Marine Sanctuary
Program (NMSP), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice and request for
applications.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Gulf of the Farallones
National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS or
Sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the
following seats on its Sanctuary
Advisory Council (Advisory Council):
At Large for Marin/Sonoma Counties
(Primary and Alternate).
At Large for San Francisco/San Mateo
Counties (Primary and Alternate).
Conservation (two Primary seats and
two Alternates).
Education (Primary and Alternate).
Maritime Activities/Commercial
(Primary and Alternate).
Maritime Activities/Recreational
(Primary and Alternate).
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67665-67668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22242]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part,
and Determination To Revoke in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars
(rebar) from Turkey (70 FR 23990). This review covers four producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period
of review (POR) is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. We are
rescinding the review with respect to 18 companies because they had no
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
In addition, we have determined to revoke the antidumping duty order
with respect to an additional exporter, ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve
Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS).
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled
``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, Office
of AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0656 and (202) 482-0498, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This review covers the following four producers/exporters:
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret (collectively
``Colakoglu''); Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively ``Diler''); Habas Tibbi ve Sinai Gazlar Istihsal
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and ICDAS.
On May 6, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on rebar from Turkey. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke
in Part, 70 FR 23990 (May 6, 2005) (Preliminary Results).
Prior to the preliminary results, the following companies informed
the Department that they had no shipments to the United States during
the POR: Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas); Cemtas Celik
Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas); Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan); Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(Ege Celik); Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik San A.S.
(collectively ``Ekinciler''); Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co.
(Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir); Kaptan Demir Celik
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan); Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi
Turk A.S. (Metas); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan
Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan); Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri
A.S. (Sivas); and Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali). We
reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and confirmed
that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these
companies. We also confirmed with CBP data that Ege Metal Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal); Kardemir--Karabuk Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk); Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman);
Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum); and Ucel
Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel) did not have entries of
subject merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding
our review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal,
Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas,
Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. For further discussion, see
the ``Partial
[[Page 67666]]
Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review.
In June and July 2005, we received case briefs from the petitioners
(i.e., Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI
Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation), Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, and
rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and
ICDAS.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated,
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004.
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal,
Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas,
Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel had no shipments and/or
entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We
have confirmed this with CBP data. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are
rescinding our review with respect to these companies. See, e.g.,
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004)
(2002-2003 Rebar Final).
Determination To Revoke Order, in Part
The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act). While Congress has not specified the
procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the
Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described
in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that a company
requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) A certification
that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than
normal value (NV) in the current review period and that the company
will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a
certification that the company sold commercial quantities of the
subject merchandise to the United States in each of the three years
forming the basis of the request; and (3) an agreement to immediate
reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less
than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the
Department will consider: (1) Whether the company in question has sold
subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three
consecutive years; (2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its
immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at
less than NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the
antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19
CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). See Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 67 FR 69719, 69720 (Nov. 19,
2002).
We have determined that the request from ICDAS meets all of the
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria of
subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show
that ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV during the current review
period. In addition, ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV in the two
previous administrative reviews in which it was involved (i.e., ICDAS's
dumping margin was zero or de minimis). See 2002-2003 Rebar Final 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 (Sept. 9, 2003). Also,
we find that application of the antidumping duty order to ICDAS is no
longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) the company had zero or
de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years;
(2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if
the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV;
and (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise
necessary to offset dumping. For further discussion, see Comment 18 of
the accompanying ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memo)
from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated November 2, 2005. Therefore, we find that
ICDAS qualifies for revocation of the antidumping duty order on rebar
under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Accordingly, we are revoking the order with
respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS.
Effective Date of Revocation
This revocation applies to all entries of subject merchandise that
are produced and exported by ICDAS, and are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2004. The Department
will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all such entries and
will instruct CBP to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department
will further instruct CBP to refund with interest any cash deposits on
entries made on or after April 1, 2004.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether the respondents participating in the
review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the
POR at prices below their costs of production (COP) within the meaning
of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for
these final results following the same methodology as in the
Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the Decision Memo.
We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of
trade. See section 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that
Colakoglu, Diler, Habas and ICDAS made below-cost sales not in the
ordinary course of trade.
[[Page 67667]]
Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review and to which we have responded are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is
adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all
issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit,
room B-099, of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain
changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the
relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages
exist for the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu........................................... 0.00
Diler............................................... 0.31
Habas............................................... 26.07
ICDAS............................................... 0.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
for all of Habas's sales and certain of ICDAS's sales and because we
have the reported entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated
importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those sales.
Regarding all of Colakoglu's and Diler's sales, as well as certain
of ICDAS's sales, we note that these companies did not report the
entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in
question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S.
sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity
of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de
minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based
on the export prices.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because we have revoked the order with respect to subject
merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS, we will order CBP to
terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April
1, 2004, and to refund all cash deposits collected.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review
for all shipments of rebar from Turkey (except shipments from ICDAS
noted above) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on
or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of
the Act: 1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be
the rates indicated above (except for ICDAS and Diler, whose weighted-
average margins are de minimis, where no cash deposit will be
required); 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, or in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the all
others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: November 2, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum
General Issues
1. Cost Averaging Periods for Habas and ICDAS
2. Depreciation Expenses
3. Matching Criteria
4. Exchange Rates
5. Universe of Sales
6. Date of Sale for Habas and ICDAS
7. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results
Company-Specific Issues
8. Cost of Billets for Colakoglu
9. Financing Expenses for Colakoglu
10. Movement Expenses Provided by an Affiliate of Diler
11. Affiliated Party Billet Purchases for Diler
12. Edge and Defective Rebar Offsets to Cost of Manufacturing (COM) for
Diler
13. Offsets to General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses for Diler
14. Denominator of the G&A and Interest Expense Calculations for Diler
15. Interest Expense Calculation for Diler
16. Omitted Costs for Diler
17. Offsets to G&A Expenses for Habas
18. Revocation for ICDAS
19. Affiliated Party Sales in ICDAS's Home Market
20. Arm's-Length Test for ICDAS
21. Level of Trade (LOT) for ICDAS
22. Whether to Treat ICDAS's U.S. Sales as Export Price (EP) or
Constructed Export Price (CEP) Sales
[[Page 67668]]
23. Collapsing Issue for ICDAS
24. Startup Adjustment for ICDAS
25. Gain on Sale of Ship for ICDAS
26. Calculation of G&A Expenses for ICDAS
27. Exchange Rate Gains for ICDAS
[FR Doc. 05-22242 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
