Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 11178-11183 [E6-3123]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11178-11183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3123]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-826]


Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From 
Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by Nucor Corporation (Nucor), the

[[Page 11179]]

Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-
quality steel plate products (CTL Plate) from Italy. The period of 
review (POR) is February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005.
    This review covers five producers/exporters of subject merchandise. 
Based upon our analysis of the record evidence, we preliminarily find 
that the application of adverse facts available (AFA) is warranted with 
respect to Palini and Bertoli S.p.A. (Palini). Further, we are 
preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Trametal S.p.A. 
(Trametal) because there is no entry against which to collect duties. 
We are also preliminarily rescinding the review for Ilva S.p.A. (Ilva), 
Metalcam S.p.A. (Metalcam) and Riva Fire S.p.A. (Riva Fire), because 
they had no shipments during the POR. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties 
on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment 
on these preliminary results of review. We will issue the final results 
of review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this 
notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Mark Manning; AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3936 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 10, 2000, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on CTL Plate from Italy. See Notice of Amendment of Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Orders: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From 
France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 
6585 (February 10, 2000) (Amended Final and Orders). On February 1, 
2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on February 28, 2005, Nucor, a domestic 
producer of subject merchandise requested that the Department conduct 
an administrative review of Palini, Ilva, Metalcam, Riva Fire, and 
Trametal. On March 23, 2005, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
CTL Plate from Italy covering the period February 1, 2004 through 
January 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643 
(March 23, 2005).
    On May 11, 2005, the Department issued section A of the antidumping 
duty questionnaire to Palini, Ilva, Metalcam, Riva Fire, and Trametal. 
In response, Ilva, Metalcam, and Riva Fire informed the Department via 
letters dated May 24, 2005, and May 30, 2005, that they did not ship 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department 
received no response from Palini or Trametal. On June 6, 2005, the 
Department sent a letter to Palini and Trametal asking whether the 
reason they had not responded to the questionnaire was because they had 
made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR.
    On June 13, 2005, Trametal informed the Department that it made one 
sale of subject merchandise to the United States. The Department 
confirmed Trametal's claim of a single U.S. sale by reviewing CBP 
import data and entry documents. Although the entry documents appear to 
indicate that Trametal shipped subject merchandise in its single sale 
to the United States during the POR, the importer did not enter the 
goods as subject to the antidumping order, and CBP liquidated the entry 
under its own authority. There is no evidence to indicate that Trametal 
has any connection to this importer.
    On June 14, 2005, Palini informed the Department that if there were 
any exports to the United States, they were made through an 
unaffiliated Canadian customer, and it did not know what portion of its 
sales to that customer were ultimately shipped to the U.S. market. The 
Department reviewed CBP data and entry documentation and found that 
certain entry documents appeared to contradict Palini's claim that it 
had no knowledge of which sales to its Canadian customer entered the 
United States. On January 5, 2006, the Department sent Palini a 
supplemental questionnaire, asking additional questions about its sales 
to the Canadian customer, during the POR, and whether Palini had 
knowledge of the port of discharge of those sales.
    In its response to the Department's January 25, 2006, supplemental 
questionnaire, Palini explained that, at the time of cargo readiness, 
its customer advises Palini of the discharge port for sales to the 
United States and Canada. Palini noted that, although some shipments 
were sent directly to the United States, it did not know whether the 
merchandise remained in the United States, or if it was re-exported 
from the United States to Canada.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the scope of this order are certain hot-
rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-
rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 
width exceeding 150 mm but no exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or 
actual thickness of not less then 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in 
coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality 
steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual 
thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and 
measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not 
in coils). Steel products to be included in this scope are of 
rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-
rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is 
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have 
been ``worked after rolling'')-for example, products which have been 
beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted 
physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with 
plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this 
scope. Also, specifically included in this scope are high strength, low 
alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-
alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, 
titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in 
this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) 
the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of 
the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by 
weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 
percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of cooper, or 0.50 percent of 
aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 
0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of 
tungsten, or 0.10 percent of

[[Page 11180]]

molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 
0.15 of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the 
written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do 
not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the 
scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The 
following products are specifically excluded from this order: (1) 
Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, 
varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) 
SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) 
products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; 
(4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) 
products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S. or their 
proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and 
(8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS 
under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.000, 7208.90.000, 
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 
7211.90.000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 
7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.90.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 
7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to 
this order is dispositive.

Application of Knowledge Test

    Based on our examination of the questionnaire responses, we 
preliminarily determine, in accordance with the Department's 
established practice, that Palini knew or should have known that the 
merchandise under review was for export to the United States at the 
time of the sale.
    Under section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the 
Act) the basis for export price is the price at which the first party 
in the chain of distribution who has knowledge of the U.S. destination 
of the merchandise sells the subject merchandise, either directly to a 
U.S. purchaser or to an intermediary such as a trading company. The 
party making such a sale, with knowledge of the destination, is the 
appropriate party to be reviewed. See Certain Pasta from Italy: 
Termination of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 66602 (December 19, 1997) (Pasta from Italy). The Department's test 
for determining knowledge is whether the relevant party knew or should 
have known that the merchandise was destined for the United States. See 
Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Trade Agreements 
Act of 1979, H.R. Rep. No. 4537, 388, 411 reprinted in 1979 
U.S.C.A.A.N. 665, 682. The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has 
upheld the Department's use of the knowledge test.
    Additionally, the CIT has affirmed that the Department is not 
required to show that the producer had actual knowledge of the 
destination of its exports. Wonderful Chemical Indus. v. United States, 
259 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1279 (CIT 2003) (citing Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. 
United States, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1331-1332 (CIT 2000).
    In determining whether a party knew or should have known that its 
merchandise was destined for the United States, the Department's well-
established practice is to consider such factors as: (1) Whether that 
party prepared or signed any certificates, shipping documents, 
contracts or other papers stating that the destination of the 
merchandise was the United States; (2) whether that party used any 
packaging or labeling which stated that the merchandise was destined 
for the United States; (3) whether any unique features or 
specifications of the merchandise otherwise indicated that the 
destination was the United States; and (4) whether that party admitted 
to the Department that it knew that its sales were destined for the 
United States. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios From Iran, 70 FR 
7470 (February 14, 2005) and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke the Order in 
Part: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or 
Above from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 69694 (December 14, 1999); 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Synthetic Indigo from the People's 
Republic of China, 64 FR 69723 (December 14, 1999) (unchanged in final 
determination) (upheld by CIT in Wonderful Chemical, 259 F. Supp. 2d at 
1280) ; and Pasta from Italy, 62 FR 66602.
    In this case, at the time of the sale, three of the four factors 
noted above are present. Specifically, Palini stated that (1) its 
unaffiliated customer informed Palini of the location of the port of 
discharge prior to shipment; (2) Palini's commercial invoice identifies 
the port of discharge; (3) Palini provided all of the shipping 
information, including the port of discharge, to the unaffiliated 
customer's shipping agent at the customer's request; and (4) Palini's 
shipping marks, which are completed prior to shipment and are stenciled 
onto each plate, include the port of discharge. Moreover, the documents 
Palini provided for two shipments, directly from Italy, during the POR, 
identify the port of discharge as one in the United States.
    Therefore, pursuant to the Department's consistent practice and 
based upon the explanations and documents provided in Palini's 
supplemental questionnaire response, we preliminarily find that Palini 
had knowledge of direct shipments to the United States of subject 
merchandise. Because Palini had knowledge that its sales to its 
Canadian customer were destined for the United States, Palini's sales 
are properly subject to this review.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to 
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner 
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we 
preliminarily find that the use of facts available as the basis for the 
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for Palini, because 
Palini withheld information specifically requested by the Department 
and significantly impeded the proceeding.
    The Department specifically requested in the May 11, 2005, 
questionnaire that Palini report the quantity and value of subject 
merchandise it sold and entered into the United States during the POR. 
Palini failed to respond to the questionnaire. It was not until the 
Department issued a letter to Palini in which we asked Palini to 
indicate whether it had no shipments during the POR, that Palini 
informed the Department that sales to the its Canadian customer may 
have entered the United States, but that it had no knowledge of which 
portion of these sales did, in fact, enter the United States. We note 
that, at this time, Palini made no mentioned that it had shipped

[[Page 11181]]

sales to this customer directly to the United States.
    As discussed above, the documentary evidence provided by Palini in 
response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, demonstrates 
that Palini had knowledge that merchandise it shipped from Italy 
entered the United States during the POR. Even though these documents 
were in Palini's possession, and kept in the normal course of business, 
Palini failed to respond to the May 11, 2005, questionnaire and did not 
report its sales and entries of subject merchandise made during the 
POR. Palini only acknowledged its direct sales to the United States 
after the Department informed Palini that CBP documents contradicted 
its earlier assertions. Because it was unaware until late in the 
proceeding that there, in fact, were entries subject to the review, the 
Department was unable to issue additional questionnaires or calculate a 
dumping margin for Palini's entries within the statutory time for 
completing the review. The Department, therefore, finds that Palini has 
withheld information that the Department specifically requested. 
Additionally, by not responding to the initial questionnaire and 
waiting to reveal its knowledge of direct shipments, Palini 
significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that it must base Palini's dumping margin on the facts 
otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the 
Act.
    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party ``failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information.'' The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal 
Circuit) has held that the statutory mandate that a respondent act to 
the ``best of its ability'' requires the respondent to do the maximum 
it is able to do. See, e.g., Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 
F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the instant case, Palini knew that 
its shipments were destined for the United States. However, Palini 
failed to report its entries of subject merchandise or even to respond 
to the May 11, 2005, questionnaire at all. Palini did not do the 
maximum it was able to do in response to the Department's requests for 
information, but rather failed to report shipments it knew were subject 
to the administrative review. Therefore, the Department finds that 
Palini failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with 
the Department's requests for information. Because Palini did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department, in selecting from 
among the facts otherwise available will use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of Palini. See section 776(b) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse facts available (AFA) information derived from (1) the 
petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation under this 
title, (3) any previous review under section 751 or determination under 
section 753, or (4) any other information on the record. \. It is the 
Department's practice normally to select the highest margin determined 
in any segment of the proceeding for any respondent. See e.g., Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Partial Rescission: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Romania, 71 FR 7008 (February 10, 2006). The CIT and the Federal 
Circuit have consistently upheld Commerce's practice. See Rhone 
Poulenc, Inc. V. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990); 
see also NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 
2004) (upholding a 73.55% total adverse facts available rate, the 
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in an LTFV 
investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 
24 CIT 678, 689 (CIT 2000) (upholding a 51.16% total adverse facts 
available rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, 
fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. 
United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01% 
total adverse facts available rate, the highest available dumping 
margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative 
review).
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) 
(SAA), see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 
FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); see also D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 
113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate 
balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond 
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the 
respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior 
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior 
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if 
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899 
F. 2d at 1190. However, the Department's reliance on secondary 
information to determine an adverse facts available rate is subject to 
the corroboration requirement of section 776(c) of the Act.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is 
described in the SAA as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition 
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The 
SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information 
used has probative value. The SAA also states that independent sources 
used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published 
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From 
Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005).
    In this case, because there have been no administrative reviews 
since the investigation, the only secondary information on the record 
is Palini's calculated rate from the investigation and information from 
the petition. The Department finds that it is inappropriate to use 
Palini's calculated rate from the

[[Page 11182]]

investigation, 7.85 percent,\1\ because we presume if Palini could have 
done better by cooperating in the proceeding it would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less. See Rhone Poulenc, 
899 F. 2d at 1190. Therefore, to ensure that Palini does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully, the Department will not use its margin from the investigation. 
See SAA, at 870. Therefore, the Department must rely on the only other 
information available, the margins from the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Sec. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-To-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India, 
Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 
(February 10, 2000) (CTL Plate Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the petition filed on February 16, 1999, the petitioners 
calculated estimated dumping margins for the identified respondents, 
including Palini, ranging from 30.75 to 93.30 percent. In this case, we 
preliminarily determine that the petition margin of 30.75 percent is 
sufficiently adverse to effectuate the purpose of the facts available 
role. Therefore, we determine that the 30.75 percent margin is 
appropriate as adverse facts available and are assigning it to Palini 
as AFA.
    Pursuant to 776(c) of the Act, we attempted to corroborate the 
margin using the only information reasonably available to us. While we 
did not have information available on the record to fully corroborate 
the margin, the fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a 
given case does not prevent the Department from applying an adverse 
inference as appropriate, and does not prevent the Department from 
using the secondary information. See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also Notice 
of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from India, 68 FR 40629 (July 8, 
2003). The petitioners calculated the AUV, which served as an estimate 
of export price (EP), using import statistics obtained from the 
International Trade Commission for the three HTSUS categories 
accounting for the largest volume of subject imports from Italy during 
the first eleven months of 1998. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From 
the Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 64 FR 
12959 (March 16, 1999) (CTL Plate from Italy Initiation Notice). The 
petitioners calculated the cost of manufacturing (COM) using their own 
production experience, adjusting for known differences between costs 
incurred to produce CTL plate in the United States and in Italy. The 
petitioners calculated selling, general, and administrative expenses; 
financial expenses; and profit based upon the 1997 financial statements 
of an Italian steel producer, consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the 
Act. Id.
    Therefore, given the record evidence from the petition and from the 
instant review, we preliminarily find that the 30.75 percent rate is 
the most appropriate to use as AFA and are assigning it to Palini.

Partial Preliminary Rescission of Administrative Review

    The Department's practice, supported by substantial precedent, 
requires that there be entries during the POR upon which to assess 
antidumping duties, to conduct an administrative review. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an administrative review 
in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer if 
we conclude that during the period of review there were ``no entries, 
exports, or sales of the subject merchandise.'' Ilva, Metalcam, and 
Riva Fire reported that they had no entries of subject merchandise 
during the POR. The Department confirmed, through CBP data, that there 
were no entries of subject merchandise from these companies during the 
POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are 
preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to 
Ilva, Metalcam, and Riva Fire.
    Trametal has no entries during the POR against which to collect 
duties. It is the Department's practice not to conduct an 
administrative review when there are no entries to be reviewed. See 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Portable Electric Typewriters from Japan, 56 FR 14072, 14073 (April 5, 
1991); and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Comments: 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 61 FR 7308, 7318 (February 
27, 1996). Liquidation of entries is final on all parties unless 
protested within the prescribed period. See 19 U.S.C. Sec.  1514(a)(5). 
Because the liquidation of Trametal's entry is final, the Department 
cannot assess antidumping duties against that entry pursuant to the 
final results of this administrative review. Therefore, the Department 
will preliminarily rescind the review with respect to Trametal, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily find that the dumping 
margin for Palini for the period February 1, 2004 through January 31, 
2005, is 30.75 percent. For Ilva, Metalcam, Riva Fire, and Trametal, we 
preliminarily rescind the administrative review.

Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 
30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments 
(rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 
arguments 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. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the 
public version of those comments. Issues raised in hearings will be 
limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any interested 
party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held approximately 37 days after the 
publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter. 
Unless the deadline for issuing the final results of review is 
extended, the Department will issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of the 
preliminary results in the Federal Register.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Because we are applying AFA to all exports of subject 
merchandise produced or exported by Palini, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate entries according to the AFA ad valorem rate for all 
importers. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final 
results of this review.

Cash Deposit Instructions

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of CTL Plate from Italy entered, or withdrawn from

[[Page 11183]]

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 
cash-deposit rate for Palini will be the rate established in the final 
results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not covered by 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 by this review, a 
prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (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 7.85 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV. See 
Amended Final and Orders. These cash-deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402.(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3123 Filed 3-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S