Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 12179-12183 [E6-3358]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
(‘‘Taiside’’) and Wuhan Shino–Food
Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shino–Food’’), in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for
a new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on honey from
the PRC, which has a December annual
anniversary month and a June semi–
annual anniversary month. On August
5, 2005, the Department initiated a
review with respect to Taiside and
Shino–Food. Honey from the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of New
Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 70
FR 45367 (August 5, 2005).
On January 13, 2006, the Department
extended the deadline for the
preliminary results to March 31, 2006.
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of 2004/2005 New
Shipper Review, 71 FR 2182 (January 13,
2006).
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the
Department to issue the preliminary
results of a new shipper review within
180 days after the date on which the
new shipper review was initiated and
final results of a review within 90 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results were issued. The Department
may, however, extend the deadline for
completion of the preliminary results of
a new shipper review to 300 days if it
determines that the case is
extraordinarily complicated. See
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the ACT, and
19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the
Department has determined that due to
the extraordinarily complicated nature
of this review, the Department requires
additional time to analyze the
supplemental questionnaire responses,
issue additional questionnaires, and
conduct verification of the responses.
Accordingly, the Department is
extending the time limit for the
completion of the preliminary results
until May 22, 2006, in accordance with
section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.214(i)(2). The final results, in
turn, will be due 90 days after the date
of issuance of the preliminary results,
unless extended.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dated: March 1, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–3368 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–588–846]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Japan: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled carbon steel flat products (hotrolled steel) from Japan in response to
a request by Ispat Inland Inc. (Ispat), a
petitioner in the original investigation,
and Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a
domestic producer of hot-rolled steel
(collectively, petitioners). Petitioners
requested administrative reviews of
Kawasaki Steel Corporation (Kawasaki)
and JFE Steel Corporation (JFE). This
review covers exports of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the period June 1, 2004 through May 31,
2005.
We preliminarily determine that
adverse facts available should be
applied to JFE and Kawasaki during the
period of review (POR) for declining to
participate, and for not cooperating with
the Department, in this administrative
review. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
See the Preliminary Results of Review
section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Hoadley or Kimberley Hunt, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3148 or (202) 482–
1272, respectively.
AGENCY:
Background
On June 29, 1999, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on hot-rolled steel from Japan in the
Federal Register. See Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon-Quality Steel Products from
Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999). On
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12179
June 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 31422
(June 1, 2005). On June 30, 2005, the
Department received a timely request
for a review from petitioners covering
JFE and Kawasaki. On July 21, 2005, the
Department published its initiation
notice for the administrative review of
the antidumping order on hot-rolled
steel from Japan. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 42028
(July 21, 2005).
The Department issued Sections A, B
and C of its original questionnaire to JFE
and to Kawasaki on August 10, 2005.1
On September 7, 2005, JFE submitted a
letter to the Department claiming that
JFE Steel is the successor to Kawasaki
Steel Corporation as a result of a
corporate reorganization that was
completed in April 2003 and Kawasaki
Steel Corporation, as a corporate entity,
no longer exists. See the September 7,
2005, letter from JFE to the Department.
On September 27, 2005, JFE informed
the Department that it did not intend to
participate in the administrative review
and would not submit a response to the
Department’s questionnaire. See Letter
from JFE Steel Corporation dated
September 27, 2005.
Period of Review
This review covers the period June 1,
2004, through May 31, 2005.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order consists of certain hot-rolled flatrolled carbon-quality steel products of a
rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch
or greater, neither clad, plated, nor
coated with metal and whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other non-metallic
substances, in coils (whether or not in
successively superimposed layers)
regardless of thickness, and in straight
1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general
information concerning a company’s corporate
structure and business practices, the merchandise
under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.
Section B requests a complete listing of all home
market sales, or, if the home market is not viable,
of sales in the most appropriate third-country
market (this section is not applicable to respondents
in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C
requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D
requests information on the cost of production
(COP) of the foreign like product and the
constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under
investigation. Section E requests information on
further manufacturing.
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
12180
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75
mm and of a width measuring at least
10 times the thickness. Universal mill
plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on
four faces or in a closed box pass, of a
width exceeding 150 mm but not
exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness
of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and
without patterns in relief) of a thickness
not less than 4.0 mm is not included
within the scope of this order.
Specifically included in this scope are
vacuum degassed, fully stabilized
(commonly referred to as interstitial-free
(IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA) steels, and the substrate for
motor lamination steels. IF steels are
recognized as low carbon steels with
micro-alloying levels of elements such
as titanium and/or niobium added to
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements.
HSLA steels are recognized as steels
with micro-alloying levels of elements
such as chromium, copper, niobium,
titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
The substrate for motor lamination
steels contains micro-alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the
scope of this investigation, 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 2 percent or less, by
weight; and (3) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity, by
weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, 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
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical
and chemical description provided
above are within the scope of this order
unless otherwise excluded. The
following products, by way of example,
are outside and/or specifically excluded
from the scope of this order:
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in
which at least one of the chemical
elements exceeds those listed above
(including e.g., ASTM specifications
A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506).
• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and
higher.
• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the
HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the
HTSUS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the
HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with
a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and
A736.
• USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS
AR 400, USS AR 500).
• Hot-rolled steel coil which meets
the following chemical, physical and
mechanical specifications:
C
Mn
P
S
Si
Cr
Cu
Ni
0.10–0.14%
0.90% Max
0.025% Max
0.005% Max
0.30–0.50%
0.50–0.70%
0.20–0.40%
0.20% Max
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063–0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000–88,000 psi.
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the
following chemical, physical and
mechanical specifications:
C
Mn
P
S
Si
Cr
Cu
Ni
Mo
0.10–0.16%
0.70–0.90%
0.025% Max
0.006% Max
0.30–0.50%
0.50–0.70%
0.25% Max
0.20% Max
0.21% Max
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim.
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the
following chemical, physical and
mechanical specifications:
C
Mn
P
S
Si
Cr
Cu
Ni
V (wt.)
Cb
0.10–0.14%
1.30–1.80%
0.025% Max
0.005% Max
0.30–0.50%
0.50–0.70%
0.20–0.40%
0.20% Max
0.10% Max
0.08% Max
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim.
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the
following chemical, physical and
mechanical specifications:
C
Mn
P
S
Si
Cr
Cu
Ni
Nb
Ca
Al
0.15% Max
1.40% Max
0.025% Max
0.010% Max
0.50% Max
1.00% Max
0.50% Max
0.20% Max
0.005% Min
Treated
0.01–0.07%
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for
thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum.
• Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phasehardened, primarily with a ferriticmartensitic microstructure, contains 0.9
percent up to and including 1.5 percent
silicon by weight, further characterized
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
by either (i) tensile strength between
540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an
elongation percentage 26 percent for
thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii)
a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation
percentage 25 percent for thicknesses of
2mm and above.
• Hot-rolled bearing quality steel,
SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an
inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent
surface quality and chemistry
restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent
maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent
maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent
maximum residuals including 0.15
percent maximum chromium.
• Grade ASTM A570–50 hot-rolled
steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width
of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM
tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119
inch nominal), mill edge and skin
passed, with a minimum copper content
of 0.20%.
The merchandise subject to this order
is classified in the HTSUS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,
7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,
7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,
7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,
7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,
7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,
7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00,
7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00,
7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00,
7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00,
7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60,
7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00,
7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00.
Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbonquality steel covered by this order,
including: vacuum degassed, fully
stabilized; high strength low alloy; and
the substrate for motor lamination steel
may also enter under the following tariff
numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00,
7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,
7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00,
7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and
7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
is dispositive.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Analysis
Application of Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)
provide that, if necessary information is
not available on the record, or if an
interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been
requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such
information in a timely matter or in the
form or manner requested subject to
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute; or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the
administering authority shall, subject to
section 782(d) of the Act, use facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination.
As noted above, JFE submitted a letter
to the Department claiming that JFE
Steel is the successor to Kawasaki Steel
Corporation as a result of a corporate
reorganization that was completed in
April 2003 and Kawasaki Steel
Corporation, as a corporate entity, no
longer exists. See the September 7,
2005, letter from JFE to the Department.
Kawasaki did not respond to the
Department’s questionnaire. On
September 27, 2005, JFE informed the
Department that it would not participate
in the administrative review and it did
not respond to the Department’s
questionnaire.
JFE’s refusal to participate makes it
impossible for the Department to
evaluate its successor-in-interest claim
with regard to Kawasaki. As such, the
record of this review shows that neither
JFE nor Kawasaki have complied with
the Department’s request for
information in this review. JFE’s stated
decision not to participate in this
administrative review, and Kawasaki’s
failure to respond to the Department’s
questionnaire constitute a refusal to
provide the Department with
information necessary to conduct its
antidumping analysis. (See section
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act). As JFE and
Kawasaki have withheld necessary
information that has been requested by
the Department, and have, in fact, made
no effort to participate in this
proceeding, the Department shall,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available to
reach the applicable determination. JFE
and Kawasaki have not submitted any
requested information regarding this
review; therefore sections 782(d) and (e)
of the Act are not applicable.
Because of the lack of any response to
the questionnaire by JFE and Kawasaki,
the Department finds that JFE and
Kawasaki have failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of their ability to
comply with the Department’s request
for information. Therefore, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, the
Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of JFE and
Kawasaki in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available. Section 776(b)
of the Act also provides that an adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination in the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12181
investigation segment of the proceeding,
a previous review under section 751 of
the Act or a determination under section
753 of the Act, or any other information
placed on the record. Additionally, the
Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Doc. No.
103–316 at 870 (SAA) establishes that
the Department may employ an adverse
inference ‘‘to ensure that the party does
not obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.’’ Furthermore, in
employing adverse inferences, the
Department is instructed to consider
‘‘the extent to which a party may benefit
from its own lack of cooperation.’’ See
SAA at 870.
By refusing to respond to the
Department’s questionnaire, JFE and
Kawasaki have failed to cooperate to the
best of their ability. JFE and Kawasaki
have not expressed concerns regarding
the proposed deadlines, nor have JFE or
Kawasaki requested additional time to
respond to the questionnaire. By
withholding the requested information,
JFE and Kawasaki prevented the
Department from conducting any
company-specific analysis or calculating
dumping margins for the POR. Because
we find that JFE and Kawasaki have
failed to cooperate by not complying
with our request for information, and to
ensure that JFE and Kawasaki will not
benefit from their lack of cooperation,
the Department, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act, has determined an
adverse inference is warranted with
respect to JFE and Kawasaki.
The Department’s practice, when
selecting an adverse facts available
(AFA) rate from among the possible
sources of information, has been to
ensure that the margin is sufficiently
adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory
purposes of the adverse facts available
rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely
manner.’’ See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
Additionally, the Department’s practice
has been to assign the highest margin
determined for any party in the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or
in any administrative review of a
specific order to respondents who have
failed to cooperate with the Department.
See e.g., Sigma Corp. v. United States,
117 F.3d 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In order to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse so as to induce JFE
and Kawasaki’s cooperation, the
Department is assigning theses
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
12182
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
companies an AFA rate of 40.26 percent
ad valorem, the margin calculated in a
section 129 redetermination of the
original LTFV investigation using
information provided by Kawasaki, and
the highest rate determined for any
party in this proceeding. See, Notice of
Determination Under Section 129 of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act:
Antidumping Measures on Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel
Products from Japan, 67 FR 71936,
71939 (December 3, 2002) (HR from
Japan 129).
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that
the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate ‘‘secondary
information’’ used for facts available by
reviewing independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary
information is information 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.
Information from a prior segment of the
proceeding, such as that used here,
constitutes secondary information. See,
e.g., Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate
from France: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003)
(Anhydrous Sodium).
The SAA provides that to
‘‘corroborate’’ means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. See SAA at 870. To the
extent practicable, the Department will
examine the reliability and relevance of
the information to be used. Unlike other
types of information, such as input costs
or selling expenses, there are no
independent sources from which the
Department can derive calculated
dumping margins. The only source for
dumping margins is administrative
determinations. In an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as
AFA a calculated dumping margin from
a prior segment of the proceeding, it is
not necessary to question the reliability
of the margin for that period. See
Anhydrous Sodium at 44284.
In making a determination as to the
relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal as to whether
there are circumstances that would
render a margin not relevant. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as adverse
facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. For example, in
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996), the Department
disregarded the highest margin as ‘‘best
information available’’ (the predecessor
to ‘‘facts available’’) since the margin
was based on another company’s
uncharacteristic business expense that
resulted in an unusually high dumping
margin. Similarly, the Department does
not apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use
a margin that has been judicially
invalidated). None of these unusual
circumstances is present here, and there
is no evidence indicating that the
margin used as facts available in this
review is not appropriate.
Moreover, in this case, the
Department is using a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of
the proceeding, namely the
investigation. Because this margin is
being applied to the company for which
it was originally calculated and to a
company claiming to be that company’s
successor-in-interest, the Department
finds that using this rate is appropriate.
However, in an attempt to further
corroborate the rate, the Department
conducted research in an attempt to find
price lists or other data that might help
inform the Department’s corroboration
analysis. We were unable to find any
useful information. See the
Memorandum to the File from
Kimberley Hunt through Scott Lindsay
and Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Research for
Corroboration for Preliminary Results of
the Administrative Review for HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Japan’’ (February 24, 2006). Absent any
other information, we find the
calculated rate from the investigation,
which was modified by the 129
proceeding, to be appropriate in this
case and the requirements of section
776(c) of the Act are satisfied.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following dumping margins exist:
Manufacturer/exporter
JFE Steel Corporation ..................
Kawasaki Steel Corporation .........
Margin
(percent)
40.26
40.26
Duty Assessment
The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) within 15 days of
publication of the final results of this
review. Upon issuance of the final
results of this administrative review, the
Department will instruct CBP to assess
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
antidumping duties on appropriate
entries by applying the margin to the
entered value of the merchandise.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will
be effective with respect to all
shipments of hot-rolled steel from Japan
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the
Act: (1) For JFE and Kawasaki, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established
in the final results of this review; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above the cash
deposit rate will be the companyspecific rate established for the most
recent period; (3) if the exporter is not
a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the 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 subject merchandise; and (4) if
neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered by this
review, a prior review, or the LTFV
investigation, the cash deposit rate shall
be the all others rate established in the
section 129 redetermination of the LTFV
investigation, which is 22.92 percent.
See HR from Japan 129. These deposit
rates, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative
review.
Public Comment
Pursuant to § 351.309 of the
Department’s regulations, interested
parties may submit written comments in
response to these preliminary results.
Unless the deadline is extended by the
Department, case briefs are to be
submitted within 30 days after the date
of publication of this notice, and
rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments
raised in case briefs, are to be submitted
no later than five days after the time
limit for filing case briefs. Parties who
submit arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
(1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. Case
and rebuttal briefs must be served on
interested parties in accordance with
§ 351.303(f) of the Department’s
regulations.
Also, pursuant to § 351.310(c) of the
Department’s regulations, within 30
days of the date of publication of this
notice, interested parties may request a
public hearing on arguments to be
raised in the case and rebuttal briefs.
Unless the Department specifies
otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will
be held two days after the date for
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties
will be notified of the time and location.
The Department will publish the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any case or rebuttal
brief, no later than 120 days after
publication of these preliminary results,
unless extended. See § 351.213(h) of the
Department’s regulations.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under section 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 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: March 2, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–3358 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A 351–840)
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Orange Juice from Brazil
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, 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) 482–3874 or (202) 482–
4593, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Scope of Order
The scope of this order includes
certain orange juice for transport and/or
further manufacturing, produced in two
different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice
in a highly concentrated form,
sometimes referred to as frozen
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
concentrated orange juice for
manufacture (FCOJM); and (2)
pasteurized single–strength orange juice
which has not been concentrated,
referred to as not–from-concentrate
(NFC). At the time of the filing of the
petition, there was an existing
antidumping duty order on frozen
concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from
Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order;
Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from
Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987).
Therefore, the scope of this order with
regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM
produced and/or exported by those
companies which were excluded or
revoked from the pre–existing
antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil
as of December 27, 2004. Those
companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada
(Cargill), Coinbra–Frutesp S.A.
(Coinbra–Frutesp), Sucocitrico Cutrale,
S.A. (Cutrale), Fischer S/A Agroindustria (Fischer), and
Montecitrus Trading S.A. (Montecitrus).
Excluded from the scope of the order
are reconstituted orange juice and
frozen concentrated orange juice for
retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange
juice is produced through further
manufacture of FCOJM, by adding
water, oils and essences to the orange
juice concentrate. FCOJR is
concentrated orange juice, typically at
42° Brix, in a frozen state, packed in
retail–sized containers ready for sale to
consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer
product, is produced through further
manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk
manufacturer’s product. The subject
merchandise is currently classifiable
under subheadings 2009.11.00,
2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS). These
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and for customs purposes
only and are not dispositive. Rather, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Antidumping Duty Order
On February 27, 2006, the
International Trade Commission (the
ITC) notified the Department of
Commerce (the Department) of its final
determination pursuant to section
735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), that the industry
in the United States producing certain
orange juice is materially injured by
reason of less–than-fair–value imports
of subject merchandise from Brazil. In
addition, the ITC notified the
Department of its final determination
that critical circumstances do not exist
with respect to imports of subject
merchandise from Brazil that are subject
to the Department’s partial affirmative
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12183
critical circumstances finding.
Therefore, in accordance with section
736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will
direct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further
advice by the Department, antidumping
duties equal to the amount by which the
normal value of the merchandise
exceeds the U.S. price of the
merchandise for all relevant entries of
certain orange juice from Brazil. These
antidumping duties will be assessed on
all unliquidated entries of certain
orange juice from Brazil entered, or
withdrawn from the warehouse, for
consumption on or after August 24,
2005, the date on which the Department
published its Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Postponement of Final
Determination, and Affirmative
Preliminary Critical Circumstances
Determination: Certain Orange Juice
from Brazil, 70 FR 49557 (Aug. 24,
2005). With regard to the ITC negative
critical circumstances determination,
we will instruct CBP to lift suspension
and to release any bond or other
security, and refund any cash deposit
made, to secure the payment of
antidumping duties with respect to
entries of the merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after May 26, 2005
(i.e., 90 days prior to the date of
publication of the preliminary
determination in the Federal Register),
but before August 24, 2005.
Section 733(d) of the Act states that
instructions issued pursuant to an
affirmative preliminary determination
may not remain in effect for more than
four months except where exporters
representing a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise
extend that four-month period to not
more than six months. In this
investigation, the six-month period
beginning on the date of the publication
of the preliminary determination ended
on February 19, 2006. Furthermore,
section 737 of the Act states that
definitive duties are to begin on the date
of publication of the ITC’s final injury
determination. Therefore, in accordance
with section 733(d) of the Act and our
practice, we instructed CBP to terminate
the suspension of liquidation and to
liquidate, without regard to
antidumping duties, unliquidated
entries of certain orange juice from
Brazil entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
February 19, 2006, and before the date
of publication of the ITC’s final injury
determination in the Federal Register.
See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Color Television Receivers From the
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12179-12183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3358]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-846]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Japan in
response to a request by Ispat Inland Inc. (Ispat), a petitioner in the
original investigation, and Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a domestic
producer of hot-rolled steel (collectively, petitioners). Petitioners
requested administrative reviews of Kawasaki Steel Corporation
(Kawasaki) and JFE Steel Corporation (JFE). This review covers exports
of subject merchandise to the United States during the period June 1,
2004 through May 31, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that adverse facts available should be
applied to JFE and Kawasaki during the period of review (POR) for
declining to participate, and for not cooperating with the Department,
in this administrative review. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results. See the Preliminary Results of
Review section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Kimberley Hunt, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3148 or (202) 482-1272, respectively.
Background
On June 29, 1999, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on hot-rolled steel from Japan in the Federal Register. See
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality
Steel Products from Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999). On June 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 31422 (June 1, 2005). On June 30, 2005,
the Department received a timely request for a review from petitioners
covering JFE and Kawasaki. On July 21, 2005, the Department published
its initiation notice for the administrative review of the antidumping
order on hot-rolled steel from Japan. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation
in Part, 70 FR 42028 (July 21, 2005).
The Department issued Sections A, B and C of its original
questionnaire to JFE and to Kawasaki on August 10, 2005.\1\ On
September 7, 2005, JFE submitted a letter to the Department claiming
that JFE Steel is the successor to Kawasaki Steel Corporation as a
result of a corporate reorganization that was completed in April 2003
and Kawasaki Steel Corporation, as a corporate entity, no longer
exists. See the September 7, 2005, letter from JFE to the Department.
On September 27, 2005, JFE informed the Department that it did not
intend to participate in the administrative review and would not submit
a response to the Department's questionnaire. See Letter from JFE Steel
Corporation dated September 27, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of
production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed
value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. Section E
requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
This review covers the period June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order consists of certain hot-
rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular
shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor
coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in
successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in
straight
[[Page 12180]]
lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at
least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width
exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not
less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a
thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this
order.
Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully
stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels,
high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor
lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with
micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added
to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized
as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium,
copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such
as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of
this investigation, 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 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the
elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively
indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, 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
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or
specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including e.g., ASTM
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506).
SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent.
ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical,
physical and mechanical specifications:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.14% 0.90% Max 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.20-0.40% 0.20% Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile
Strength = 70,000-88,000 psi.
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical
and mechanical specifications:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.16% 0.70-0.90% 0.025% Max 0.006% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.25% Max 0.20% Max 0.21% Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile
Strength = 105,000 psi Aim.
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical
and mechanical specifications:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni V (wt.) Cb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.14% 1.30-1.80% 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.20-0.40% 0.20% Max 0.10% Max 0.08% Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim.
Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical
and mechanical specifications:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Nb Ca Al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.15% Max 1.40% Max 0.025% Max 0.010% Max 0.50% Max 1.00% Max 0.50% Max 0.20% Max 0.005% Min Treated 0.01-0.07%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for
thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum.
Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily
with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to
and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by
either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an
elongation percentage 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or
(ii) a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an
elongation percentage 25 percent for thicknesses of 2mm and above.
Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in
coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per
[[Page 12181]]
ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry
restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015
percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including
0.15 percent maximum chromium.
Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut
lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances),
thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed,
with a minimum copper content of 0.20%.
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00,
7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60,
7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Certain
hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this order,
including: vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy;
and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the
following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50,
7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00,
7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00,
7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Analysis
Application of Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act) provide that, if necessary information is not available on
the record, or if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B)
fails to provide such information in a timely matter or in the form or
manner requested subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act;
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute;
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified
as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable determination.
As noted above, JFE submitted a letter to the Department claiming
that JFE Steel is the successor to Kawasaki Steel Corporation as a
result of a corporate reorganization that was completed in April 2003
and Kawasaki Steel Corporation, as a corporate entity, no longer
exists. See the September 7, 2005, letter from JFE to the Department.
Kawasaki did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. On
September 27, 2005, JFE informed the Department that it would not
participate in the administrative review and it did not respond to the
Department's questionnaire.
JFE's refusal to participate makes it impossible for the Department
to evaluate its successor-in-interest claim with regard to Kawasaki. As
such, the record of this review shows that neither JFE nor Kawasaki
have complied with the Department's request for information in this
review. JFE's stated decision not to participate in this administrative
review, and Kawasaki's failure to respond to the Department's
questionnaire constitute a refusal to provide the Department with
information necessary to conduct its antidumping analysis. (See section
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act). As JFE and Kawasaki have withheld necessary
information that has been requested by the Department, and have, in
fact, made no effort to participate in this proceeding, the Department
shall, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available to reach the applicable determination. JFE and Kawasaki have
not submitted any requested information regarding this review;
therefore sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable.
Because of the lack of any response to the questionnaire by JFE and
Kawasaki, the Department finds that JFE and Kawasaki have failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with the
Department's request for information. Therefore, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an inference that is adverse
to the interests of JFE and Kawasaki in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act also provides that an
adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination in the investigation segment of the
proceeding, a previous review under section 751 of the Act or a
determination under section 753 of the Act, or any other information
placed on the record. Additionally, the Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Doc.
No. 103-316 at 870 (SAA) establishes that the Department may employ an
adverse inference ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' Furthermore, in employing adverse inferences, the Department
is instructed to consider ``the extent to which a party may benefit
from its own lack of cooperation.'' See SAA at 870.
By refusing to respond to the Department's questionnaire, JFE and
Kawasaki have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. JFE and
Kawasaki have not expressed concerns regarding the proposed deadlines,
nor have JFE or Kawasaki requested additional time to respond to the
questionnaire. By withholding the requested information, JFE and
Kawasaki prevented the Department from conducting any company-specific
analysis or calculating dumping margins for the POR. Because we find
that JFE and Kawasaki have failed to cooperate by not complying with
our request for information, and to ensure that JFE and Kawasaki will
not benefit from their lack of cooperation, the Department, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, has determined an adverse inference is
warranted with respect to JFE and Kawasaki.
The Department's practice, when selecting an adverse facts
available (AFA) rate from among the possible sources of information,
has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely manner.'' See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23,
1998). Additionally, the Department's practice has been to assign the
highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review of a specific
order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the Department.
See e.g., Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to
induce JFE and Kawasaki's cooperation, the Department is assigning
theses
[[Page 12182]]
companies an AFA rate of 40.26 percent ad valorem, the margin
calculated in a section 129 redetermination of the original LTFV
investigation using information provided by Kawasaki, and the highest
rate determined for any party in this proceeding. See, Notice of
Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act:
Antidumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality
Steel Products from Japan, 67 FR 71936, 71939 (December 3, 2002) (HR
from Japan 129).
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to
the extent practicable, corroborate ``secondary information'' used for
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. Secondary information is information 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. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as that
used here, constitutes secondary information. See, e.g., Anhydrous
Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003) (Anhydrous
Sodium).
The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value. See SAA at 870. To the extent practicable, the
Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. Unlike other types of information, such as
input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from
which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins. The only
source for dumping margins is administrative determinations. In an
administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that period.
See Anhydrous Sodium at 44284.
In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of
corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a
margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department
will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For
example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the
Department disregarded the highest margin as ``best information
available'' (the predecessor to ``facts available'') since the margin
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that
resulted in an unusually high dumping margin. Similarly, the Department
does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co.
v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department
will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of
these unusual circumstances is present here, and there is no evidence
indicating that the margin used as facts available in this review is
not appropriate.
Moreover, in this case, the Department is using a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, namely the
investigation. Because this margin is being applied to the company for
which it was originally calculated and to a company claiming to be that
company's successor-in-interest, the Department finds that using this
rate is appropriate. However, in an attempt to further corroborate the
rate, the Department conducted research in an attempt to find price
lists or other data that might help inform the Department's
corroboration analysis. We were unable to find any useful information.
See the Memorandum to the File from Kimberley Hunt through Scott
Lindsay and Barbara E. Tillman, ``Research for Corroboration for
Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review for Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Japan'' (February 24, 2006). Absent any other
information, we find the calculated rate from the investigation, which
was modified by the 129 proceeding, to be appropriate in this case and
the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins
exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JFE Steel Corporation........................................ 40.26
Kawasaki Steel Corporation................................... 40.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Assessment
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within 15 days of
publication of the final results of this review. Upon issuance of the
final results of this administrative review, the Department will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by
applying the margin to the entered value of the merchandise.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to
all shipments of hot-rolled steel from Japan entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For
JFE and Kawasaki, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in
the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above the cash deposit rate will be
the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review,
or the 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 subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior
review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the
all others rate established in the section 129 redetermination of the
LTFV investigation, which is 22.92 percent. See HR from Japan 129.
These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Public Comment
Pursuant to Sec. 351.309 of the Department's regulations,
interested parties may submit written comments in response to these
preliminary results. Unless the deadline is extended by the Department,
case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments
raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days
after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in
accordance with Sec. 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations.
Also, pursuant to Sec. 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations,
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested
parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Department specifies otherwise,
the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for
[[Page 12183]]
submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and
location.
The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after
publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See Sec.
351.213(h) of the Department's regulations.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under section 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 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: March 2, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3358 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
