Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 26455-26463 [E6-6881]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
14, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.214(j)(3), to (i) waive the time limits
for a new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC,
and (ii) allow the Department to
conduct Hai Li’s new shipper review
proceeding concurrent with the separate
administrative review that the
Department initiated on April 7, 2006.
See letter from Hai Li requesting
alignment with administrative review
(April 14, 2006).
Postponement of New Shipper Review
Pursuant to Hai Li’s request, and in
accordance with section 351.214(j)(3) of
the Department’s regulations, we will
conduct this new shipper review
concurrently with the July 16, 2004,
through January 31, 2006,
administrative review of frozen
warmwater shrimp from the PRC.
Therefore, the preliminary results of the
antidumping new shipper review, as
well as the administrative review, will
be due 245 days from February 28, 2006,
the last day of the anniversary month of
the order. See section 751 (a)(3)(A) of
the Act and section 351.213(h) of the
Department’s regulations. Thus, the
deadline for the preliminary results of
this new shipper review, as well as the
administrative review, is October 31,
2006.
This notice is published in
accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19
CFR 351.214(j)(3).
Dated: April 28, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–6877 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Background
International Trade Administration
[A–489–807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the
petitioners and four producers/exporters
of the subject merchandise, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:48 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
Turkey. This review covers 15
producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States. This
is the seventh period of review (POR),
covering April 1, 2004, through March
31, 2005.
We have preliminarily determined
that 11 of the producers/exporters have
made sales below normal value (NV). If
these preliminary results are adopted in
the final results of this review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries.
On January 23, 2006, we rescinded
the review with respect to ICDAS Celik
Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S.
(ICDAS) based on the Department’s
determination in the prior
administrative review to revoke ICDAS
from the order. In addition, we have
preliminarily determined to rescind the
review with respect to 18 companies
because either: (1) These companies had
no shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR; or (2) the
questionnaires sent to these companies
were returned to the Department
because of undeliverable addresses.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who wish to submit comments
in this proceeding are requested to
submit with each argument: (1) a
statement of the issue; and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina
Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone (202) 482–0656 or (202) 482–
0498, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On April 1, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of ‘‘Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review’’ of the
antidumping duty order on rebar from
Turkey (70 FR 16799).
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2), in April 2005, the
Department received requests to
conduct an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on rebar from
Turkey from the following producers/
exporters of rebar: Colakoglu Metalurji
A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively ‘‘Colakoglu’’); Diler Demir
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (now
doing business as Yazici Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S.) and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26455
Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively,
‘‘Diler’’); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and
ICDAS. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(1), on April 29, 2005, the
petitioners, Nucor Corporation, Gerdau
AmeriSteel Corporation and
Commercial Metals Company, also
requested an administrative review for
each of the above companies, as well as
additional producers/exporters of
rebar.1
In May 2005, the Department initiated
an administrative review for each of
these companies. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 70 FR 30694 (May
27, 2005). From May 2005 through
August 2005, we issued questionnaires
to them.
In June and August 2005,
respectively, Tosyali and Cemtas
informed the Department that they had
no shipments or entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. Because
we confirmed this with CBP, we are
preliminarily rescinding the review
with respect to these companies. For
further discussion, see the ‘‘Partial
Rescission of Review’’ section of this
notice.
In August 2005, we received
responses to sections A through C of the
questionnaire (i.e., the sections
regarding sales to the home market and
the United States) from Colakoglu, Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas, as well as section
D of the questionnaire (i.e., the section
regarding cost of production (COP) and
1 Akmisa Foreign Trade Ltd. Co. (Akmisa);
Buyurgan Group Steel Division and Metalenerji
A.S. (Buyurgan); Cag Celik Demir ve Celik
Endustrisi A.S. (Cag Celik); Cebitas Demir Celik
Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas); Cemtas Celik Makina
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas); Cukurova Celik
Endustrisi A.S. (Cukurova); Demirsan Haddecilik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan); DHT Metal
(DHT); Efesan Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Efe
Demir Celik (Efesan); Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik); Ege Metal Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal); Ekinciler Demir
ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S.
(Ekinciler); Ilhanlar Rolling and Textile Industries,
Ltd., Sti. and Ilhanlar Group (Ilhanlar); Intermet
A.S. (Intermet); Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co.
(Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir);
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S.
(Kaptan); Kardemir - Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. (Kardemir); Koc Dis Ticaret A.S.
(Koc); Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman); Kurum
Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum);
Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A.S. (Metas
Izmir); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(Nurmet); Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S.
(Nursan); Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri A.S. (Sivas);
Sozer Steel Works (Sozer); ST Steel Industry and
Foreign Trade Ltd. Sti. (ST Steel); Tosyali Demir
Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali); Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel); Yesilyurt Demir Celik/
Yesilyurt Demir Cekme San ve Tic Ltd. Sirketi
(Yesilyurt); and the Yolbulan Group (Yolbulanlar
Nak. ve Ticaret A.S., Yolbulan Metal Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. and Yolbulan Dis Ticaret Ltd. Sti.)
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
26456
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
constructed value (CV)) from Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas.
In September 2005, the questionnaires
sent to Akmisa, Cukurova, Metas Izmir,
Sivas, and ST Steel were returned to the
Department because of undeliverable
addresses. Subsequently, we contacted
the petitioners in this review and
requested that they provide alternate
addresses for these companies; however,
they were unable to do so.
Consequently, we are also preliminarily
rescinding our review with respect to
these companies. For further discussion,
see the ‘‘Partial Rescission of Review’’
section of this notice.
Also in September 2005, the
petitioners alleged that Colakoglu was
selling at prices below its COP in the
home market. Based on an analysis of
this allegation, the Department initiated
an investigation to determine whether
Colakoglu made home market sales at
prices below its COP within the
meaning of section 773(b) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act.
Consequently, we required Colakoglu to
submit a response to section D of the
questionnaire. We received Colakoglu’s
response in October 2005.
In September and October 2005, the
following companies informed the
Department that they had no shipments
or entries of subject merchandise during
the POR: Buyurgan, Cag Celik, Cebitas,
Demirsan, DHT, Efesan, Ege Celik,
Izmir, Kaptan, Kardemir, Kurum, and
Yesilyurt. Because we confirmed this
with CBP, we are preliminarily
rescinding the review with respect to
these companies. For further discussion,
see the ‘‘Partial Rescission of Review’’
section of this notice. We received no
response to the questionnaire from the
remaining companies (Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc,
Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel,
and the Yolbulan group). Therefore, we
have preliminarily determined to base
the margin for each of them on adverse
facts available (AFA). For further
discussion, see the ‘‘Application of
Facts Available’’ section of this notice.
In October 2005, we issued a
supplemental questionnaire to
Ekinciler. We received a response to this
questionnaire in November 2005.
In November 2005, the Department
postponed the preliminary results of
this review until no later than May 1,
2006. See Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results in Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
70785 (Nov. 23, 2005).
In November and December 2005, we
issued supplemental questionnaires to
Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:48 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
We received responses to these
questionnaires in December 2005 and
January 2006.
In January 2006, we rescinded the
review with respect to ICDAS based on
the Department’s determination in the
prior administrative review to revoke
ICDAS from the order. See Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey;
Notice of Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 3468 (Jan. 23, 2006).
Also, in January 2006, we issued
additional supplemental questionnaires
to Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas. We
received responses to these
questionnaires in February 2006.
In February and March 2006, we
issued additional supplemental
questionnaires to Colakoglu, Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas. We received
responses to these questionnaires in
February and March 2006. Also, in
February and March 2006, we
conducted verifications in Turkey of the
information submitted by Colakoglu and
Diler.
In March 2006, Mitsui Steel Inc.
(Mitsui), an interested party to this
proceeding, submitted evidence
demonstrating that it was the importer
of record for certain of Diler’s U.S. sales,
and it requested that the results of this
review be applied to the associated
entries. Based on the information
provided by Mitsui, we have revised the
entered values and importer of record
for the transactions in question. See the
‘‘Assessment’’ section below for further
discussion.
In April 2006, we issued further
supplemental questionnaires to
Ekinciler and Habas. We received
responses to these questionnaires in
April 2006.
Finally, in April 2006, it came to our
attention that one of Diler’s affiliated
rebar producers, Yazici Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Yazici), changed
its corporate structure prior to the
initiation of this review and is now
doing business under the name Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret
A.S. (Yazici Turizm). As a result, we
solicited information on this change
from Diler. Diler supplied this
information in April 2006. After
analyzing this information, we
preliminarily find that Yazici Turizm is
the successor–in-interest to Yazici. For
further discussion, see the ‘‘Successor–
in-Interest’’ section of this notice,
below.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all stock deformed steel concrete
reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths
and coils. This includes all hot–rolled
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,
rail steel, axle steel, or low–alloy steel.
It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii)
rebar that a processor has further
worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated
rebar. Deformed rebar is currently
classifiable under subheadings
7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Successor–in-Interest
As noted above, in April 2006, Diler
informed the Department that its
affiliated producer, Yazici, merged with
another group company and is now
doing business under the name Yazici
Turizm. As a result, on April 13, 2006,
we requested that Diler address the
following four factors with respect to
this change in corporate structure in
order to determine whether Yazici
Turizm is the successor–in-interest to
Yazici: management, production
facilities for the subject merchandise,
supplier relationships, and customer
base.
On April 18, 2006, Diler responded to
the Department’s request. In this
submission, Diler stated that, in 2002,
Yazici changed its name to Yazici
Turizm and merged with another
company in the Diler Group, which was
involved in a hotel construction project
in Turkey. According to Diler, neither
the name change nor the merger has had
any effect on the core activity of the
company, which is to produce billets
and rebar. Specifically, Diler stated that
there were no changes to Yazici’s
management, production facilities for
the subject merchandise, supplier
relationships, or customer base as a
result of the change in corporate
structure. Therefore, Diler requested
that the Department inform CBP that the
company in existence and subject to the
2004–2005 administrative review was
Yazici Turizm.
Based on our analysis of Diler’s April
18, 2006, submission, we find that
Yazici Turizm’s organizational
structure, management, production
facilities, supplier relationships, and
customers have remained essentially
unchanged. Further, we find that Yazici
Turizm operates as the same business
entity as Yazici with respect to the
production and sale of rebar. Thus, we
find that Yazici Turizm is the
successor–in-interest to Yazici, and, as a
consequence, its exports of rebar are
subject to this proceeding. For further
discussion, see the May 1, 2006,
memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys,
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
Deputy Assistant Secretary, from Irene
Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Office
Director, entitled, ‘‘Successor–InInterest Determination for Diler Demir
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and
Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively
‘‘Diler’’) in the 2004–2005 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar)
from Turkey.’’
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2004, through
March 31, 2005.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above, Buyurgan, Cag Celik,
Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, DHT,
Efesan, Ege Celik, Izmir, Kaptan,
Kardemir, Tosyali, and Yesilyurt
informed the Department that they had
no shipments of subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR. We
have confirmed this with CBP. See the
Memorandum to the File from Brianne
Riker entitled, ‘‘Placing Customs Entry
Documents on the Record of the 2004–
2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,’’ dated
May 2, 2005. Therefore, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and
consistent with the Department’s
practice, we are preliminarily
rescinding our review with respect to
these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey;
Final Results, Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, and Determination To
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666
(Nov. 8, 2005); Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results, Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69
FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004).
In addition, the questionnaires sent to
Akmisa, Cukurova, Metas Izmir, Sivas,
and ST Steel were returned to the
Department because of undeliverable
addresses. Although we requested that
the petitioners provide alternate
addresses for these companies, they
were unable to do so. For further
discussion, see the Memorandum to the
File from Brianne Riker entitled,
‘‘Placing Information on the Record in
the 2004–2005 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain
Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from
Turkey,’’ dated September 20, 2005.
Because we were unable to locate these
companies, we are also preliminarily
rescinding our review with respect to
them.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:48 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act, provides
that the Department will apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if, inter alia,
necessary information is not available
on the record or an interested party: (1)
withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (2) fails to
provide such information within the
deadlines established, or in the form or
manner requested by the Department,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly
impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides
such information, but the information
cannot be verified.
As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’
section, above, on August 26, 2005, the
Department requested that Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc,
Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel,
and the Yolbulan Group respond to the
Department’s antidumping duty
questionnaire. The deadline to file a
response was October 3, 2005. The
Department did not receive a response
from these companies. On October 31,
2005, the Department placed
documentation on the record confirming
delivery of the questionnaires to each
company. See the Memorandum to the
File from Brianne Riker entitled,
‘‘Placing Information on the Record of
the 2004–2005 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from
Turkey,’’ dated October 31, 2005. Thus,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C)
of the Act, because these companies did
not respond to the Department’s
questionnaire, the Department
preliminarily finds that the use of total
facts available is appropriate.
According to section 776(b) of the
Act, if the Department finds that an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information, the
Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise
available. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel
Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26
(Sept. 13, 2005); see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR
55792, 55794–96 (Aug. 30, 2002).
Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to
ensure 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26457
103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA).
Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of
bad faith on the part of a respondent is
not required before the Department may
make an adverse inference.’’ See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340
(May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We
preliminarily find that Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc,
Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel,
and the Yolbulan Group did not act to
the best of their abilities in this
proceeding, within the meaning of
section 776(b) of the Act, because they
failed to respond to the Department’s
questionnaire. Therefore, an adverse
inference is warranted in selecting from
the facts otherwise available. See
Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use as AFA,
information derived from: (1) The
petition; (2) the final determination in
the investigation; (3) any previous
review; or (4) any other information
placed on the record.
The Department’s practice, when
selecting an 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 (Feb. 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., Heavy Forged Hand Tools,
Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Final
Rescission and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 70 FR 54897, 54898 (Sept. 19,
2005).
In order to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse so as to induce
cooperation, we have preliminarily
assigned a rate of 41.80 percent, which
was the rate alleged in the petition, as
adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV
investigation. This rate was assigned in
a previous segment of this proceeding
and is the highest rate determined for
any respondent in any segment of this
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
26458
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
proceeding. See Notice of Amendment
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR
16543 (Apr. 7, 1997) (Amended LTFV
Final Determination). The Department
finds that this rate is sufficiently high as
to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available rule (i.e., we find that this rate
is high enough to encourage
participation in future segments of this
proceeding in accordance with section
776(b) of the Act).
Information from prior segments of
the proceeding constitutes secondary
information and section 776(c) of the
Act provides that the Department shall,
to the extent practicable, corroborate
that secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. The Department’s regulations
provide that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that
the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used
has probative value. See 19 CFR
351.308(d); see also 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 dumping
margins. The only source for dumping
margins is administrative
determinations. In the LTFV
investigation in this proceeding, the
Department found that the petition rate
was reliable. See Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 61 FR
53203, 53204 (Oct. 10, 1996),
unchanged in the Amended LTFV Final
Determination.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal as to whether
there are circumstances that would
render a margin inappropriate. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the
Department may disregard the margin
and determine an appropriate margin.
See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR
6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the
Department disregarded the highest
calculated margin as AFA because the
margin was based on a company’s
uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin).
Therefore, we examined whether any
information on the record would
discredit the selected rate as reasonable
facts available. To do so, we conducted
research in an attempt to find data that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:48 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
might help inform the Department’s
corroboration analysis. We were unable
to find any information that would
discredit the selected AFA rate. See the
Memorandum to the File from Brianne
Riker entitled, ‘‘Research for
Corroboration for the Preliminary
Results in the 2004–2005 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar)
from Turkey,’’ dated May 1, 2006. Since
we did not find evidence indicating that
the margin used as facts available in this
proceeding is not appropriate, we have
determined that the 41.80 percent
margin calculated in the LTFV
investigation is appropriate as AFA and
are assigning this rate to Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc,
Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel,
and the Yolbulan Group. This is
consistent with section 776(b) of the Act
which states that adverse inferences
may include reliance on information
derived from the petition.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of rebar
from Turkey were made in the United
States at less than NV, we compared the
export price (EP) to the NV. When
making comparisons in accordance with
section 771(16) of the Act, we
considered all products sold in the
home market as described in the ‘‘Scope
of the Order’’ section of this notice,
above, that were in the ordinary course
of trade for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home
market made in the ordinary course of
trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales
of the most similar foreign like product
made in the ordinary course of trade
based on the characteristics listed in
sections B and C of our antidumping
questionnaire.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we first attempted to compare
products produced by the same
company and sold in the U.S. and home
markets that were identical with respect
to the following characteristics: form,
grade, size, and industry standard
specification. Where there were no
home market sales of foreign like
product that were identical in these
respects to the merchandise sold in the
United States, we compared U.S.
products with the most similar
merchandise sold in the home market
based on the characteristics listed
above, in that order of priority.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Export Price
For all U.S. sales made by Colakoglu,
Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas, we used EP
methodology, in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because the
subject merchandise was sold directly to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States prior to importation and
constructed export price methodology
was not otherwise warranted based on
the facts of record.
Regarding the date of sale, three of the
respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Diler, and
Habas) argued that we should use one
of the following dates as the date of sale
for their U.S. sales in this review: (1) the
date of the original contract; (2) the date
of the contract amendment; (3) the date
of the amended letter of credit; (4) the
date of the purchase order; or (5) the
date of the sales confirmation. After
analyzing the information on the record
of this review with respect to this issue,
we find that, not only were the initial
agreements between these respondents
and their U.S. customers often subject to
change, they in fact did change. Thus
we have used invoice date as the U.S.
date of sale for Colakoglu, Diler, and
Habas in accordance with 19 CFR 401(i).
Regarding Ekinciler, we used the
contract date as the date of sale because
the evidence on the record shows that
there were no changes in the material
terms of sale between the contract and
the invoice. For further discussion, see
the Memorandum to the File from
Brianne Riker entitled, ‘‘Date of Sale
Information for the 2004–2005
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review on Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,’’ dated
May 1, 2006.
A. Colakoglu
We based EP on packed prices to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. We made deductions for loading
expenses, overage charges, inspection
fees, demurrage expenses (offset by
freight commission revenue, dispatch
revenue, and other freight–related
revenue), ocean freight expenses,
marine insurance expenses, U.S.
customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and
handling expenses, where appropriate,
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A)
of the Act.
B. Diler
We based EP on packed prices to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. We made deductions for foreign
inland freight expenses, loading
expenses (including charges for loading
supervision), ocean freight expenses
(offset by dispatch revenue), and
brokerage and handling expenses, where
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
appropriate, in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Regarding foreign inland freight and
international freight services, Diler
reported that certain of these services
were provided by an affiliated party. At
verification, we tested the movement
expenses charged by affiliated parties to
determine whether the prices charged
were at ‘‘arm’s length.’’ Where we found
that the prices were not at arm’s length,
we adjusted them to be equivalent to the
market price. For further discussion, see
the Memorandum to the File from Alice
Gibbons entitled, ‘‘Calculations
Performed for Diler Demir Celik
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir
Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Diler
Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ‘‘Diler’’)
for the Preliminary Results in the 2004–
2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review on Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,’’ dated
May 1, 2006.
C. Ekinciler
We based EP on packed prices to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. We made deductions for foreign
brokerage and handling, crane charges,
terminal charges, port charges, overage
charges, inspection fees, demurrage
expenses (offset by dispatch revenue)
and ocean freight expenses, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act.
D. Habas
We based EP on packed prices to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. We made deductions for foreign
inland freight expenses, loading
charges, forklift charges, surveying
expenses, customs overtime fees,
demurrage expenses, and ocean freight
expenses, where appropriate, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act.
Normal Value
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
A. Home Market Viability
In order to determine whether there is
a sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product is five percent or
more of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared the volume of each
respondent’s home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of
U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of
the Act. Based on this comparison, we
determined that each respondent had a
viable home market during the POR.
Consequently, we based NV on home
market sales.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:48 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
For each respondent, in accordance
with our practice, we excluded home
market sales of non–prime merchandise
made during the POR from our
preliminary analysis based on the
limited quantity of such sales in the
home market and the fact that no such
sales were made to the United States
during the POR. See, e.g., Final
Determinations of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold–Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain
Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products, and Certain Cut–to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR
37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993); Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From
Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, and Determination To
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8,
2005); Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey;
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of
Intent Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR
25066, 25066 (May 5, 2004); Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From
Turkey; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 67 FR 21634, 21636 (May 1,
2002), unchanged by the final results;
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars
From Turkey; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 56274 (Nov. 7, 2001) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
B. Affiliated Party Transactions and
Arm’s–Length Test
Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas made sales
of rebar to affiliated parties in the home
market during the POR. Consequently,
we tested these sales to ensure that they
were made at arm’s–length prices, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To
test whether the sales to affiliates were
made at arm’s–length prices, we
compared the unit prices of sales to
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net
of all movement charges, direct selling
expenses, and packing expenses. Where
the price to that affiliated party was, on
average, within a range of 98 to 102
percent of the price of the same or
comparable merchandise sold to the
unaffiliated parties at the same level of
trade (LOT), we determined that the
sales made to the affiliated party were
at arm’s length. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR
69186 (Nov. 15, 2002).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26459
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act, for Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas,
there were reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that these
respondents had made home market
sales at prices below their COPs in this
review because the Department had
disregarded sales that failed the cost test
for these companies in the most recently
completed segment of this proceeding in
which these companies participated
(i.e., the 2000–2001 administrative
review for Ekinciler, the 2001–2002
administrative review for Habas, and the
2002–2003 administrative review for
Diler). As a result, the Department
initiated an investigation to determine
whether these companies had made
home market sales during the POR at
prices below their COPs.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of
the Act, for Colakoglu, there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that this respondent had made home
market sales at prices below its COP in
this review because of information
contained in the cost allegation properly
filed in this review by the petitioners.
As a result, the Department initiated an
investigation to determine whether
Colakoglu made home market sales
during the POR at prices below its COP.
See the Memorandum from The Team to
Office Director, Office 2, AD/CVD
Operations, entitled, ‘‘Petitioners’
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of
Production for Colakoglu Metalurji
A.S.,’’ dated September 22, 2005.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated COP based on
the sum of the respondents’ cost of
materials and fabrication for the foreign
like product, plus amounts for general
and administrative (G&A) expenses and
interest expenses. See the ‘‘Test of
Comparison Market Sales Prices’’
section below for treatment of home
market selling expenses.
We relied on the COP information
provided by each respondent in its
questionnaire responses, except for the
following instances where the
information was not appropriately
quantified or valued:
A. Colakoglu
1. We adjusted Colakoglu’s reported cost
of manufacturing (COM) to
appropriately value the claimed offset
related to transactions with an
affiliated party.
2. We included the depreciation
expense related to buildings in the
reported COM.
3. We based the interest expense ratio
on the amounts reflected in
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
26460
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
Colakoglu’s 2004 fiscal year statutory
financial statements, which were
prepared in accordance with Turkish
generally accepted accounting
principles. We note that in the
previous administrative review,
Colakoglu used its financial
statements which were prepared in
accordance with International
Accounting Standards (IAS) to
calculate its financial expenses.
However, in this review, we find that
the statutory financial statements are
preferable to Colakoglu’s 2004 IAS
financial statements (also submitted
by Colakoglu on the record of this
segment) because the statutory
financial statements most clearly
reflect the data recorded in
Colakoglu’s normal books and
records.
4. We revised the reported G&A expense
ratio to be consistent with the revision
of the indirect selling expense ratio,
based on our findings at verification.
For further discussion of these
adjustments, see the Memorandum from
Sheikh Hannan to Neal Halper entitled,
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results - Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and
Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively
‘‘Colakoglu’’),’’ dated May 1, 2006.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
B. Diler
1. We adjusted Yazici Turizm’s reported
COM to increase the cost of certain
billets purchased from its affiliate
Korfez Steel Industry and Trade Inc.
to market value, in accordance with
section 773(f)(2) of the Act.
2. We recalculated Diler’s G&A expense
ratio calculation to: 1) reflect the
treatment of parent company G&A
expenses in its normal books and
records; and 2) exclude an offset for
certain non–operating income.
3. Because the financial expense ratio
for Diler is negative, we set it to zero.
This is in accordance with the
Department’s practice of determining
that, when a company earns enough
financial income that it recovers all of
its financial expense, that company
did not have a resulting cost for
financing during that period. See
Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber
Products From Canada, 70 FR 73437
(Dec. 12, 2005) (Lumber from
Canada), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at
Comments 9 and 25.
For further discussion of these
adjustments, see the Memorandum from
Margaret Pusey to Neal Halper entitled,
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:48 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
Value Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results - Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve
Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret
A.S. (collectively ‘‘Diler’’),’’ dated May
1, 2006.
C. Ekinciler
1. We revised the reported G&A
expenses to include a proportionate
share of Ekinciler’s parent company’s
company–wide G&A expenses. In
addition, we included in total G&A
expenses certain items which had
been excluded.
2. We revised Ekinciler’s reported
financial expenses to exclude certain
offsets to the financial expenses
related to investment income.
For further discussion of these
adjustments, see the Memorandum from
Mark Todd to Neal Halper entitled,
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results - Ekinciler Demir ve
Celik Sanayi A.S. (Ekinciler),’’ dated
May 1, 2006.
D. Habas
1. Because the financial expense ratio
for Habas is negative, we set it to zero
in accordance with the Department’s
practice. See Lumber from Canada at
Comments 9 and 25.
2. We adjusted Habas’s reported COM
by disallowing a claimed offset for
double–counted billet costs because
Habas failed to demonstrate that these
costs were double–counted.
For further discussion of these
adjustments, see the Memorandum from
James Balog to Neal Halper entitled,
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results - Habas Sinai ve
Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.,’’
dated May 1, 2006.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted–average
COP figures to home market prices of
the foreign like product, as required
under section 773(b) of the Act, in order
to determine whether these sales had
been made at prices below the COP. On
a product–specific basis, we compared
the COP to home market prices, less any
applicable movement charges, selling
expenses, and packing expenses.
In determining whether to disregard
home market sales made at prices below
the COP, we examined whether such
sales were made: 1) in substantial
quantities within an extended period of
time; and 2) at prices which permitted
the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time. See sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
a respondent’s sales of a given product
were at prices less than the COP, we did
not disregard any below–cost sales of
that product because we determined
that the below–cost sales were not made
in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20
percent or more of a respondent’s sales
of a given product were at prices below
the COP, we found that sales of that
model were made in ‘‘substantial
quantities’’ within an extended period
of time (as defined in section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In
such cases, we also determined that
such sales were not made at prices
which would permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)
of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of
this administrative review, we
disregarded these below–cost sales for
Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas
and used the remaining sales as the
basis for determining NV, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
D. Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on
sales in the comparison market at the
same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of
the starting–price sales in the
comparison market or, when NV is
based on CV, that of the sales from
which we derive selling, G&A expenses,
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also
the level of the starting–price sale,
which is usually from the exporter to
the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than EP sales, we
examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the producer and
the unaffiliated customer. If the
comparison–market sales are at a
different LOT and the difference affects
price comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences
between the sales on which NV is based
and comparison–market sales at the
LOT of the export transaction, we make
an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
All the respondents in this review
claimed that they sold rebar at a single
LOT in their home and U.S. markets.
However, three of these respondents
(Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas) reported
that they sold rebar directly to various
categories of customers in the home
market, while the remaining company
(Colakoglu) reported that it made both
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
direct sales and sales through affiliated
resellers to various categories of
customers in the home market.
Regarding U.S. sales, all respondents
reported only EP sales to the United
States to a single customer category (i.e.,
unaffiliated traders). However, three of
these companies reported direct sales to
U.S. customers, while one respondent
(Colakoglu) reported sales through an
affiliated party in the United States.
Regarding these latter sales, we have
classified them as EP transactions
because we confirmed at verification
that: (1) all significant selling activities
related to these sales (e.g., price
negotiations, invoicing) were conducted
by Colakoglu personnel in Turkey; (2)
the only selling functions provided by
Colakoglu employees on behalf of the
affiliated party include certain import–
related expenses; and (3) this affiliated
party has no physical location or
employees in the United States.
To determine whether sales to any of
these customer categories were made at
different LOTs, we examined the stages
in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution
for each of these respondents. Regarding
U.S. sales, each of the respondents
reported that it performed identical
selling functions across customer
categories and channels of distribution
in the U.S. market, except in the case of
Colakoglu which also provided certain
import–related services with respect to
its sales through an affiliated party.
After analyzing the data on the record
with respect to these functions, we find
that the respondents made all sales at
the same marketing stage (i.e., the same
LOT) in the U.S. market, and any
additional import–related services
provided by Colakoglu with respect to
its affiliated party sales do not rise to
the level of a separate LOT.
Regarding home market sales, each of
the respondents reported that it
performed identical selling functions
across customer categories in the home
market. After analyzing the data on the
record with respect to these functions,
we find that the respondents performed
the same selling functions for their
home market customers, regardless of
customer category or channel of
distribution. Specifically, regarding
Colakoglu, although it made direct sales
and sales through its affiliated resellers
in the home market, we find that there
is one home market LOT because: (1)
the resellers do not have separate
locations apart from Colakoglu’s offices;
and (2) all selling activities related to
home market sales made by the
affiliated resellers are performed by
Colakoglu personnel. Therefore, we find
that Colakoglu does not perform an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:48 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
additional layer of selling functions for
the home market sales through its
affiliated resellers. Accordingly, we find
that Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and
Habas made all sales at the same
marketing stage (i.e., at the same LOT)
in the home market.
For sales to the United States,
Colakoglu performed the same selling
functions/services as it did for its home
market sales, and it also provided
certain import–related services for U.S.
sales. Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas
performed the same selling functions/
services for their U.S. sales as they did
for their home market sales. After
analyzing the reported information, we
find that the U.S. LOT for each
respondent is the same as its home
market LOT. As a consequence, we find
that no LOT adjustment is warranted in
this case.
E. Calculation of Normal Value
1. Colakoglu
We based NV on the starting prices to
home market customers. For those home
market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars,
we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather
than the Turkish lira (TL) price adjusted
for kur farki (i.e., an adjustment to the
TL invoice price to account for the
difference between the estimated and
actual TL value on the date of payment),
because the only price agreed upon was
a U.S.-dollar price, which remained
unchanged. The buyer merely paid the
TL–equivalent amount at the time of
payment. This treatment is consistent
with our treatment of these transactions
in the most recently completed segment
of this proceeding. See Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey;
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of
Intent To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 23990,
23995 (May 6, 2005), unchanged in the
final results. Where appropriate, we
made deductions from the starting price
for foreign inland freight expenses, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of
the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we
made circumstance–of-sale adjustments
for credit expenses (offset by interest
revenue), bank charges, exporter
association fees, and commissions.
Regarding commissions, Colakoglu
incurred commissions only in relation
to U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S.
commissions by the lesser of the
commission amount or home market
indirect selling expenses. We deducted
home market packing costs and added
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26461
U.S. packing costs, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we made
adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of
the merchandise, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.411(a). We based this
adjustment on the difference in the
variable costs of manufacturing for the
foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
2. Diler
We based NV on the starting prices to
home market customers. For those home
market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars,
we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather
than the TL price adjusted for kur farki,
because the only price agreed upon was
a U.S.-dollar price, which remained
unchanged. For further discussion, see
the ‘‘Colakoglu’’ section above. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from
the starting price for foreign inland
freight expenses, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we
made circumstance–of-sale adjustments
for credit expenses (offset by interest
revenue), bank fees, and exporter
association fees. We deducted home
market packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we made
adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of
the merchandise, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.411(a). We based this
adjustment on the difference in the
variable costs of manufacturing for the
foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
3. Ekinciler
We based NV on the starting prices to
home market customers. For those home
market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars,
we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather
than the TL price adjusted for kur farki,
because the only price agreed upon was
a U.S.-dollar price, which remained
unchanged. For further discussion, see
the ‘‘Colakoglu’’ section above. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from
the starting price for billing
adjustments. In addition, we made
deductions for foreign inland freight
expenses, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we
made circumstance–of-sale adjustments
for credit expenses, bank charges,
exporter association fees, and
commissions. Regarding commissions,
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
26462
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Ekinciler incurred commissions only in
relation to U.S. sales. Therefore,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset
U.S. commissions by the lesser of the
commission amount or home market
indirect selling expenses. We deducted
home market packing costs and added
U.S. packing costs, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Because
Ekinciler reported that certain of its
packing expenses were invoiced by an
affiliated party, we tested the prices
charged by the affiliate to determine
whether they were at arm’s length.
Where we found that the prices were
not at arm’s length, we adjusted the
price charged by the affiliate to include
the selling, general, and administrative
expenses incurred related to the
provision of these services. For further
discussion, see the Memorandum to the
File from Irina Itkin entitled,
‘‘Calculations Performed for Ekinciler
Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and
Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively
‘‘Ekinciler’’) for the Preliminary Results
in the 2004–2005 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review on Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey,’’ dated May 1, 2006.
Where appropriate, we made
adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of
the merchandise, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.411(a). We based this
adjustment on the difference in the
variable costs of manufacturing for the
foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
4. Habas
We based NV on the starting prices to
home market customers. For those home
market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars,
we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather
than the TL price adjusted for kur farki,
because the only price agreed upon was
a U.S.-dollar price, which remained
unchanged. For further discussion, see
the ‘‘Colakoglu’’ section above.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we
made circumstance–of-sale adjustments
for credit expenses, bank charges,
exporter association fees, and
commissions. Regarding commissions,
Habas incurred commissions only in
relation to U.S. sales. Therefore,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset
U.S. commissions by the lesser of the
commission amount or home market
indirect selling expenses. We deducted
home market packing costs and added
U.S. packing costs, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we made
adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
the merchandise, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.411(a). We based this
adjustment on the difference in the
variable costs of manufacturing for the
foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars pursuant to section 773A(a)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415.
Although the Department’s preferred
source for daily exchange rates is the
Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal
Reserve Bank does not track or publish
exchange rates for Turkish Lira.
Therefore, we made currency
conversions based on exchange rates
from the Dow Jones Reuters Business
Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the
respondents during the period April 1,
2004, through March 31, 2005:
Manufacturer/Producer/
Exporter
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S.
and Colakoglu Dis
Ticaret A.S. ...............
Diler Demir Celik
Endustrisi ve Ticaret
A.S./.
Yazici Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Turizm
Ticaret A.S./.
Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. ....
Ege Metal Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S. ...........................
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik
Sanayi A.S. and
Ekinciler Dis Ticaret
A.S. ...........................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi
Gazlar Istithsal
Endustrisi A.S. ..........
Ilhanlar Rolling and
Textile Industries,
Ltd., Sti. and Ilhanlar
Group ........................
Intermet A.S. .................
Iskenderun Iron & Steel
Works Co. .................
Koc Dis Ticaret A.S. .....
Kroman Celik Sanayi
A.S. ...........................
Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. ...............
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve
Haddecilik A.S. ..........
Sozer Steel Works ........
Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. ..........
Yolbulanlar Nak. ve
Ticaret A.S./.
Yolbulan Metal Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S./.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Margin Percentage
0.26 (de minimis)
0.02 (de minimis)
41.80
0.00
0.00
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
Sfmt 4703
Manufacturer/Producer/
Exporter
Margin Percentage
Yolbulan Dis Ticaret
Ltd., Sti. .....................
41.80
Public Comment
The Department will disclose to
parties the calculations performed in
connection with these preliminary
results within five days of the date of
publication of this notice. Interested
parties may request a hearing within 30
days of publication of this notice. Any
hearing, if requested, will be held two
days after the date rebuttal briefs are
filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309,
interested parties may submit cases
briefs not later than 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed not later
than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Department will issue the final results
of the administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such written comments, within
120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment
Upon completion of the
administrative review, the Department
shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
On March 9, 2006, Mitsui, an
interested party to this proceeding,
submitted evidence demonstrating that
it was the importer of record for certain
of Diler’s POR sales. We examined the
information submitted by Mitsui and
tied it to the U.S. sales listing, as well
as to documentation obtained at the
sales verification of Diler. We noted that
Mitsui was indeed the importer of
record for the sales in question.
Therefore, for purposes of calculating
the importer–specific assessment rates,
we have treated Mitsui as the importer
of record for Diler’s relevant POR
shipments.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for
all sales made by Habas and Colakoglu,
as well as for certain sales made by
Diler, because we have the reported
entered value of the U.S. sales, we have
calculated importer–specific assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those sales.
Regarding certain of Diler’s and all of
Ekinciler’s sales, we note that these
companies did not report the entered
value for the U.S. sales in question.
Accordingly, we have calculated
importer–specific assessment rates for
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
the merchandise in question by
aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer and dividing this amount by
the total quantity of those sales. To
determine whether the duty assessment
rates were de minimis, in accordance
with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–
specific ad valorem ratios based on the
estimated entered value.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
will instruct CBP to liquidate without
regard to antidumping duties any
entries for which the assessment rate is
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR
produced by companies included in
these preliminary results of review for
which the reviewed companies did not
know their merchandise was destined
for the United States, as well as any
companies for which we are rescinding
the review based on certifications of no
shipments. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all–others rate if there is
no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the
transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of rebar from Turkey entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided for
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the
cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be the rates established
in the final results of this review, except
if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, de
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be
zero; (2) for previously investigated
companies not listed above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, or 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 merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will continue to be 16.06
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:48 May 04, 2006
Jkt 208001
percent, the all–others rate established
in the LTFV investigation. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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.
We are issuing and publishing these
results of review in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: May 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–6881 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 050206A]
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC); Meetings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council’s Ad Hoc Policy
Advisory Panel (Panel) will hold public
meetings with officials from the NMFS.
DATES: The meetings will be held
Wednesday, May 25, 2006, through
Thursday, May 26, 2006. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for a
meeting agenda.
ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at
the Sheraton Society Hill, One Dock
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106,
telephone 215–238–6000.
Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 300 S. New
Street, Dover, DE 19904, telephone 302–
674–2331.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director,
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26463
Council; telephone: 302–674–2331,
extension 19.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m.
with opening remarks from the Panel
Chairman and the Director of NMFS. At
8:45 a.m. the National Academy of
Sciences’ National Research Council’s
draft report on recreational fisheries
survey methods will be discussed
regarding: the implications of its
conclusions and recommendations;
policy considerations when using
historical Marine Recreational Fisheries
Statistical Survey (MRFSS) data to
establish recreational sector share of
quota managed fisheries and state-bystate sub-allocations; policy
considerations when using current
MRFSS data to establish specifications
for the coming fishing year; and, the
practicability and significance of
applying of National Standard 2 criteria
to MRFSS data. At 10 a.m. the
Government Accountability Office’s
(GAO) report ‘‘Core Principles and a
Strategic Approach Would Enhance
Stakeholder Participation in Developing
Quota-Based Programs’’ will be
reviewed and discussed. At 10:45 a.m.
the National Fish Habitat Initiative will
be discussed and evaluated in terms of
addressing opportunities to build
partnerships with non-government
organizations (NGO). At 11:15 a.m.
various Congressional Legislative
proposals to reauthorize the MagnusonStevens Act will be presented and
discussed including an assessment as to
the likelihood and timing of their
passage.
Following lunch, a discussion of
sociological resources for fishery
management will begin at 1:30 p.m.
Identification and descriptions of
sociological needs in the Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) process will be
reviewed, together with an assessment
of Council and NMFS capabilities to
meet MSA requirements. Standardized
Bycatch Reporting Methodology
discussions will begin at 2 p.m. focusing
on existing Council reporting
methodologies including how they were
developed and how they operate. In
cases where bycatch information is not
yet being reported, what actions are
underway to adopt such reporting
systems. Beginning at 3 p.m. law
enforcement issues regarding vessel
monitoring systems (including a status
update on the VMS program and
associated funding) and the role of
enforcement in public meetings will be
reviewed and discussed. Councils
budget status reviews for fiscal year
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26455-26463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6881]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 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 the petitioners and four
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars
(rebar) from Turkey. This review covers 15 producers/exporters of the
subject merchandise to the United States. This is the seventh period of
review (POR), covering April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.
We have preliminarily determined that 11 of the producers/exporters
have made sales below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results
are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries.
On January 23, 2006, we rescinded the review with respect to ICDAS
Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS) based on the
Department's determination in the prior administrative review to revoke
ICDAS from the order. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to
rescind the review with respect to 18 companies because either: (1)
These companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR;
or (2) the questionnaires sent to these companies were returned to the
Department because of undeliverable addresses.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue;
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0656 or (202) 482-0498, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of ``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey (70 FR 16799).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), in April 2005, the
Department received requests to conduct an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey from the following
producers/exporters of rebar: Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu
Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Colakoglu''); Diler Demir Celik
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(now doing business as Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret
A.S.) and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, ``Diler''); Habas Sinai
ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and ICDAS. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on April 29, 2005, the
petitioners, Nucor Corporation, Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation and
Commercial Metals Company, also requested an administrative review for
each of the above companies, as well as additional producers/exporters
of rebar.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Akmisa Foreign Trade Ltd. Co. (Akmisa); Buyurgan Group Steel
Division and Metalenerji A.S. (Buyurgan); Cag Celik Demir ve Celik
Endustrisi A.S. (Cag Celik); Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S.
(Cebitas); Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas);
Cukurova Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cukurova); Demirsan Haddecilik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan); DHT Metal (DHT); Efesan Demir
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Efe Demir Celik (Efesan); Ege Celik
Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik); Ege Metal Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal); Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi
A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (Ekinciler); Ilhanlar Rolling
and Textile Industries, Ltd., Sti. and Ilhanlar Group (Ilhanlar);
Intermet A.S. (Intermet); Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co.
(Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir); Kaptan Demir
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan); Kardemir - Karabuk Demir
Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kardemir); Koc Dis Ticaret A.S. (Koc);
Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman); Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret
Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum); Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A.S.
(Metas Izmir); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan
Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan); Sivas Demir Celik
Isletmeleri A.S. (Sivas); Sozer Steel Works (Sozer); ST Steel
Industry and Foreign Trade Ltd. Sti. (ST Steel); Tosyali Demir Celik
Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali); Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(Ucel); Yesilyurt Demir Celik/ Yesilyurt Demir Cekme San ve Tic Ltd.
Sirketi (Yesilyurt); and the Yolbulan Group (Yolbulanlar Nak. ve
Ticaret A.S., Yolbulan Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Yolbulan Dis
Ticaret Ltd. Sti.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review for
each of these companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 70 FR 30694 (May 27, 2005). From May 2005 through August 2005,
we issued questionnaires to them.
In June and August 2005, respectively, Tosyali and Cemtas informed
the Department that they had no shipments or entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. Because we confirmed this with CBP, we are
preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these companies.
For further discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review''
section of this notice.
In August 2005, we received responses to sections A through C of
the questionnaire (i.e., the sections regarding sales to the home
market and the United States) from Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and
Habas, as well as section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the section
regarding cost of production (COP) and
[[Page 26456]]
constructed value (CV)) from Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas.
In September 2005, the questionnaires sent to Akmisa, Cukurova,
Metas Izmir, Sivas, and ST Steel were returned to the Department
because of undeliverable addresses. Subsequently, we contacted the
petitioners in this review and requested that they provide alternate
addresses for these companies; however, they were unable to do so.
Consequently, we are also preliminarily rescinding our review with
respect to these companies. For further discussion, see the ``Partial
Rescission of Review'' section of this notice.
Also in September 2005, the petitioners alleged that Colakoglu was
selling at prices below its COP in the home market. Based on an
analysis of this allegation, the Department initiated an investigation
to determine whether Colakoglu made home market sales at prices below
its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act. Consequently, we required Colakoglu to submit a
response to section D of the questionnaire. We received Colakoglu's
response in October 2005.
In September and October 2005, the following companies informed the
Department that they had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise
during the POR: Buyurgan, Cag Celik, Cebitas, Demirsan, DHT, Efesan,
Ege Celik, Izmir, Kaptan, Kardemir, Kurum, and Yesilyurt. Because we
confirmed this with CBP, we are preliminarily rescinding the review
with respect to these companies. For further discussion, see the
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice. We received no
response to the questionnaire from the remaining companies (Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer,
Ucel, and the Yolbulan group). Therefore, we have preliminarily
determined to base the margin for each of them on adverse facts
available (AFA). For further discussion, see the ``Application of Facts
Available'' section of this notice.
In October 2005, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to
Ekinciler. We received a response to this questionnaire in November
2005.
In November 2005, the Department postponed the preliminary results
of this review until no later than May 1, 2006. See Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time
Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 70785 (Nov. 23, 2005).
In November and December 2005, we issued supplemental
questionnaires to Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas. We received
responses to these questionnaires in December 2005 and January 2006.
In January 2006, we rescinded the review with respect to ICDAS
based on the Department's determination in the prior administrative
review to revoke ICDAS from the order. See Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 3468 (Jan. 23, 2006).
Also, in January 2006, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires
to Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas. We received responses to these
questionnaires in February 2006.
In February and March 2006, we issued additional supplemental
questionnaires to Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas. We received
responses to these questionnaires in February and March 2006. Also, in
February and March 2006, we conducted verifications in Turkey of the
information submitted by Colakoglu and Diler.
In March 2006, Mitsui Steel Inc. (Mitsui), an interested party to
this proceeding, submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the
importer of record for certain of Diler's U.S. sales, and it requested
that the results of this review be applied to the associated entries.
Based on the information provided by Mitsui, we have revised the
entered values and importer of record for the transactions in question.
See the ``Assessment'' section below for further discussion.
In April 2006, we issued further supplemental questionnaires to
Ekinciler and Habas. We received responses to these questionnaires in
April 2006.
Finally, in April 2006, it came to our attention that one of
Diler's affiliated rebar producers, Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Yazici), changed its corporate structure prior to the
initiation of this review and is now doing business under the name
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S. (Yazici Turizm). As a
result, we solicited information on this change from Diler. Diler
supplied this information in April 2006. After analyzing this
information, we preliminarily find that Yazici Turizm is the successor-
in-interest to Yazici. For further discussion, see the ``Successor-in-
Interest'' section of this notice, below.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated,
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable
under subheadings 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Successor-in-Interest
As noted above, in April 2006, Diler informed the Department that
its affiliated producer, Yazici, merged with another group company and
is now doing business under the name Yazici Turizm. As a result, on
April 13, 2006, we requested that Diler address the following four
factors with respect to this change in corporate structure in order to
determine whether Yazici Turizm is the successor-in-interest to Yazici:
management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier
relationships, and customer base.
On April 18, 2006, Diler responded to the Department's request. In
this submission, Diler stated that, in 2002, Yazici changed its name to
Yazici Turizm and merged with another company in the Diler Group, which
was involved in a hotel construction project in Turkey. According to
Diler, neither the name change nor the merger has had any effect on the
core activity of the company, which is to produce billets and rebar.
Specifically, Diler stated that there were no changes to Yazici's
management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier
relationships, or customer base as a result of the change in corporate
structure. Therefore, Diler requested that the Department inform CBP
that the company in existence and subject to the 2004-2005
administrative review was Yazici Turizm.
Based on our analysis of Diler's April 18, 2006, submission, we
find that Yazici Turizm's organizational structure, management,
production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have
remained essentially unchanged. Further, we find that Yazici Turizm
operates as the same business entity as Yazici with respect to the
production and sale of rebar. Thus, we find that Yazici Turizm is the
successor-in-interest to Yazici, and, as a consequence, its exports of
rebar are subject to this proceeding. For further discussion, see the
May 1, 2006, memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys,
[[Page 26457]]
Deputy Assistant Secretary, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting
Office Director, entitled, ``Successor-In-Interest Determination for
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler'') in
the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Turkey.''
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above, Buyurgan, Cag Celik, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan,
DHT, Efesan, Ege Celik, Izmir, Kaptan, Kardemir, Tosyali, and Yesilyurt
informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this
with CBP. See the Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker entitled,
``Placing Customs Entry Documents on the Record of the 2004-2005
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 2, 2005. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the
Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with
respect to these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in
Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005); Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in
Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004).
In addition, the questionnaires sent to Akmisa, Cukurova, Metas
Izmir, Sivas, and ST Steel were returned to the Department because of
undeliverable addresses. Although we requested that the petitioners
provide alternate addresses for these companies, they were unable to do
so. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Brianne
Riker entitled, ``Placing Information on the Record in the 2004-2005
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Concrete Reinforcing
Bars (Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated September 20, 2005. Because we were
unable to locate these companies, we are also preliminarily rescinding
our review with respect to them.
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act, provides that the Department will apply
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is
not available on the record or an interested party: (1) withholds
information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the information
cannot be verified.
As discussed in the ``Background'' section, above, on August 26,
2005, the Department requested that Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet,
Iskenderun, Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan
Group respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. The
deadline to file a response was October 3, 2005. The Department did not
receive a response from these companies. On October 31, 2005, the
Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of
the questionnaires to each company. See the Memorandum to the File from
Brianne Riker entitled, ``Placing Information on the Record of the
2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated October 31,
2005. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act,
because these companies did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total
facts available is appropriate.
According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless
Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure 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, Vol. 1, at 870
(1994) (SAA). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an
adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon).
We preliminarily find that Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun,
Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan Group did
not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the
meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to
the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, an adverse inference is
warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available. See Nippon,
337 F.3d at 1382-83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as
AFA, information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any
other information placed on the record.
The Department's practice, when selecting an 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 (Feb. 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., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished,
With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70
FR 54897, 54898 (Sept. 19, 2005).
In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to
induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 41.80
percent, which was the rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the
initiation of the LTFV investigation. This rate was assigned in a
previous segment of this proceeding and is the highest rate determined
for any respondent in any segment of this
[[Page 26458]]
proceeding. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey, 62 FR 16543 (Apr. 7, 1997) (Amended LTFV Final Determination).
The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule (i.e., we find that
this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments
of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act).
Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Department's regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also 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 dumping
margins. The only source for dumping margins is administrative
determinations. In the LTFV investigation in this proceeding, the
Department found that the petition rate was reliable. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 61 FR 53203, 53204 (Oct.
10, 1996), unchanged in the Amended LTFV Final Determination.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is
not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR
6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the
highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was based on a
company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually
high margin). Therefore, we examined whether any information on the
record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available.
To do so, we conducted research in an attempt to find data that might
help inform the Department's corroboration analysis. We were unable to
find any information that would discredit the selected AFA rate. See
the Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker entitled, ``Research for
Corroboration for the Preliminary Results in the 2004-2005 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars
(Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated May 1, 2006. Since we did not find
evidence indicating that the margin used as facts available in this
proceeding is not appropriate, we have determined that the 41.80
percent margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is appropriate as
AFA and are assigning this rate to Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet,
Iskenderun, Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan
Group. This is consistent with section 776(b) of the Act which states
that adverse inferences may include reliance on information derived
from the petition.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the
United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to the
NV. When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in
the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice, above, that were in
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of
trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like
product made in the ordinary course of trade based on the
characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping
questionnaire.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted
to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S.
and home markets that were identical with respect to the following
characteristics: form, grade, size, and industry standard
specification. Where there were no home market sales of foreign like
product that were identical in these respects to the merchandise sold
in the United States, we compared U.S. products with the most similar
merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed
above, in that order of priority.
Export Price
For all U.S. sales made by Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas,
we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act,
because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based
on the facts of record.
Regarding the date of sale, three of the respondents (i.e.,
Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas) argued that we should use one of the
following dates as the date of sale for their U.S. sales in this
review: (1) the date of the original contract; (2) the date of the
contract amendment; (3) the date of the amended letter of credit; (4)
the date of the purchase order; or (5) the date of the sales
confirmation. After analyzing the information on the record of this
review with respect to this issue, we find that, not only were the
initial agreements between these respondents and their U.S. customers
often subject to change, they in fact did change. Thus we have used
invoice date as the U.S. date of sale for Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas
in accordance with 19 CFR 401(i). Regarding Ekinciler, we used the
contract date as the date of sale because the evidence on the record
shows that there were no changes in the material terms of sale between
the contract and the invoice. For further discussion, see the
Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker entitled, ``Date of Sale
Information for the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 1,
2006.
A. Colakoglu
We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States. We made deductions for loading expenses, overage
charges, inspection fees, demurrage expenses (offset by freight
commission revenue, dispatch revenue, and other freight-related
revenue), ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S.
customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
B. Diler
We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight
expenses, loading expenses (including charges for loading supervision),
ocean freight expenses (offset by dispatch revenue), and brokerage and
handling expenses, where
[[Page 26459]]
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Regarding foreign inland freight and international freight
services, Diler reported that certain of these services were provided
by an affiliated party. At verification, we tested the movement
expenses charged by affiliated parties to determine whether the prices
charged were at ``arm's length.'' Where we found that the prices were
not at arm's length, we adjusted them to be equivalent to the market
price. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from
Alice Gibbons entitled, ``Calculations Performed for Diler Demir Celik
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler'') for the Preliminary
Results in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 1,
2006.
C. Ekinciler
We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States. We made deductions for foreign brokerage and
handling, crane charges, terminal charges, port charges, overage
charges, inspection fees, demurrage expenses (offset by dispatch
revenue) and ocean freight expenses, in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
D. Habas
We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight
expenses, loading charges, forklift charges, surveying expenses,
customs overtime fees, demurrage expenses, and ocean freight expenses,
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market
sales.
For each respondent, in accordance with our practice, we excluded
home market sales of non-prime merchandise made during the POR from our
preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in the
home market and the fact that no such sales were made to the United
States during the POR. See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993); Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 2005); Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of
Intent Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 25066, 25066 (May 5, 2004); Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 21634, 21636 (May 1,
2002), unchanged by the final results; Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 56274 (Nov. 7, 2001) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas made sales of rebar to affiliated
parties in the home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested
these sales to ensure that they were made at arm's-length prices, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the sales to
affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit
prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Where
the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of
98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise
sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade (LOT), we
determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's
length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002).
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas, there were reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that these respondents had made home market sales at prices
below their COPs in this review because the Department had disregarded
sales that failed the cost test for these companies in the most
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which these companies
participated (i.e., the 2000-2001 administrative review for Ekinciler,
the 2001-2002 administrative review for Habas, and the 2002-2003
administrative review for Diler). As a result, the Department initiated
an investigation to determine whether these companies had made home
market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, for Colakoglu,
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that this
respondent had made home market sales at prices below its COP in this
review because of information contained in the cost allegation properly
filed in this review by the petitioners. As a result, the Department
initiated an investigation to determine whether Colakoglu made home
market sales during the POR at prices below its COP. See the Memorandum
from The Team to Office Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations,
entitled, ``Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of
Production for Colakoglu Metalurji A.S.,'' dated September 22, 2005.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and
administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses. See the ``Test of
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home
market selling expenses.
We relied on the COP information provided by each respondent in its
questionnaire responses, except for the following instances where the
information was not appropriately quantified or valued:
A. Colakoglu
1. We adjusted Colakoglu's reported cost of manufacturing (COM) to
appropriately value the claimed offset related to transactions with an
affiliated party.
2. We included the depreciation expense related to buildings in the
reported COM.
3. We based the interest expense ratio on the amounts reflected in
[[Page 26460]]
Colakoglu's 2004 fiscal year statutory financial statements, which were
prepared in accordance with Turkish generally accepted accounting
principles. We note that in the previous administrative review,
Colakoglu used its financial statements which were prepared in
accordance with International Accounting Standards (IAS) to calculate
its financial expenses. However, in this review, we find that the
statutory financial statements are preferable to Colakoglu's 2004 IAS
financial statements (also submitted by Colakoglu on the record of this
segment) because the statutory financial statements most clearly
reflect the data recorded in Colakoglu's normal books and records.
4. We revised the reported G&A expense ratio to be consistent with the
revision of the indirect selling expense ratio, based on our findings
at verification.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum
from Sheikh Hannan to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Colakoglu
Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively
``Colakoglu''),'' dated May 1, 2006.
B. Diler
1. We adjusted Yazici Turizm's reported COM to increase the cost of
certain billets purchased from its affiliate Korfez Steel Industry and
Trade Inc. to market value, in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the
Act.
2. We recalculated Diler's G&A expense ratio calculation to: 1) reflect
the treatment of parent company G&A expenses in its normal books and
records; and 2) exclude an offset for certain non-operating income.
3. Because the financial expense ratio for Diler is negative, we set it
to zero. This is in accordance with the Department's practice of
determining that, when a company earns enough financial income that it
recovers all of its financial expense, that company did not have a
resulting cost for financing during that period. See Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products From Canada, 70 FR 73437 (Dec. 12, 2005) (Lumber from
Canada), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 9
and 25.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum
from Margaret Pusey to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Diler Demir
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler''),'' dated May
1, 2006.
C. Ekinciler
1. We revised the reported G&A expenses to include a proportionate
share of Ekinciler's parent company's company-wide G&A expenses. In
addition, we included in total G&A expenses certain items which had
been excluded.
2. We revised Ekinciler's reported financial expenses to exclude
certain offsets to the financial expenses related to investment income.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum
from Mark Todd to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results -
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. (Ekinciler),'' dated May 1, 2006.
D. Habas
1. Because the financial expense ratio for Habas is negative, we set it
to zero in accordance with the Department's practice. See Lumber from
Canada at Comments 9 and 25.
2. We adjusted Habas's reported COM by disallowing a claimed offset for
double-counted billet costs because Habas failed to demonstrate that
these costs were double-counted.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum
from James Balog to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results -
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.,'' dated May 1,
2006.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices
of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the
Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices
below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, selling expenses,
and packing expenses.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: 1) in
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and 2) at
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. See sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such
cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded these below-cost
sales for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas and used the remaining
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section
773(a)(1) of the Act.
D. Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in
the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales
from which we derive selling, G&A expenses, and profit. For EP, the
U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually
from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales,
we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along
the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated
customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the
difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and
comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
All the respondents in this review claimed that they sold rebar at
a single LOT in their home and U.S. markets. However, three of these
respondents (Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas) reported that they sold rebar
directly to various categories of customers in the home market, while
the remaining company (Colakoglu) reported that it made both
[[Page 26461]]
direct sales and sales through affiliated resellers to various
categories of customers in the home market. Regarding U.S. sales, all
respondents reported only EP sales to the United States to a single
customer category (i.e., unaffiliated traders). However, three of these
companies reported direct sales to U.S. customers, while one respondent
(Colakoglu) reported sales through an affiliated party in the United
States. Regarding these latter sales, we have classified them as EP
transactions because we confirmed at verification that: (1) all
significant selling activities related to these sales (e.g., price
negotiations, invoicing) were conducted by Colakoglu personnel in
Turkey; (2) the only selling functions provided by Colakoglu employees
on behalf of the affiliated party include certain import-related
expenses; and (3) this affiliated party has no physical location or
employees in the United States.
To determine whether sales to any of these customer categories were
made at different LOTs, we examined the stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of distribution for each of these
respondents. Regarding U.S. sales, each of the respondents reported
that it performed identical selling functions across customer
categories and channels of distribution in the U.S. market, except in
the case of Colakoglu which also provided certain import-related
services with respect to its sales through an affiliated party. After
analyzing the data on the record with respect to these functions, we
find that the respondents made all sales at the same marketing stage
(i.e., the same LOT) in the U.S. market, and any additional import-
related services provided by Colakoglu with respect to its affiliated
party sales do not rise to the level of a separate LOT.
Regarding home market sales, each of the respondents reported that
it performed identical selling functions across customer categories in
the home market. After analyzing the data on the record with respect to
these functions, we find that the respondents performed the same
selling functions for their home market customers, regardless of
customer category or channel of distribution. Specifically, regarding
Colakoglu, although it made direct sales and sales through its
affiliated resellers in the home market, we find that there is one home
market LOT because: (1) the resellers do not have separate locations
apart from Colakoglu's offices; and (2) all selling activities related
to home market sales made by the affiliated resellers are performed by
Colakoglu personnel. Therefore, we find that Colakoglu does not perform
an additional layer of selling functions for the home market sales
through its affiliated resellers. Accordingly, we find that Colakoglu,
Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas made all sales at the same marketing stage
(i.e., at the same LOT) in the home market.
For sales to the United States, Colakoglu performed the same
selling functions/services as it did for its home market sales, and it
also provided certain import-related services for U.S. sales. Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas performed the same selling functions/services for
their U.S. sales as they did for their home market sales. After
analyzing the reported information, we find that the U.S. LOT for each
respondent is the same as its home market LOT. As a consequence, we
find that no LOT adjustment is warranted in this case.
E. Calculation of Normal Value
1. Colakoglu
We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the Turkish lira (TL) price adjusted for kur
farki (i.e., an adjustment to the TL invoice price to account for the
difference between the estimated and actual TL value on the date of
payment), because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price,
which remained unchanged. The buyer merely paid the TL-equivalent
amount at the time of payment. This treatment is consistent with our
treatment of these transactions in the most recently completed segment
of this proceeding. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From
Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke in Part, 70 FR
23990, 23995 (May 6, 2005), unchanged in the final results. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign
inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the
Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit
expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank charges, exporter
association fees, and commissions. Regarding commissions, Colakoglu
incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. Therefore,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by the lesser
of the commission amount or home market indirect selling expenses. We
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable
costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
2. Diler
We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained
unchanged. For further discussion, see the ``Colakoglu'' section above.
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for
foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit
expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank fees, and exporter
association fees. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable
costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
3. Ekinciler
We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained
unchanged. For further discussion, see the ``Colakoglu'' section above.
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for
billing adjustments. In addition, we made deductions for foreign inland
freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit
expenses, bank charges, exporter association fees, and commissions.
Regarding commissions,
[[Page 26462]]
Ekinciler incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales.
Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by
the lesser of the commission amount or home market indirect selling
expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Because
Ekinciler reported that certain of its packing expenses were invoiced
by an affiliated party, we tested the prices charged by the affiliate
to determine whether they were at arm's length. Where we found that the
prices were not at arm's length, we adjusted the price charged by the
affiliate to include the selling, general, and administrative expenses
incurred related to the provision of these services. For further
discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Irina Itkin entitled,
``Calculations Performed for Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and
Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler'') for the
Preliminary Results in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 1,
2006.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable
costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
4. Habas
We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained
unchanged. For further discussion, see the ``Colakoglu'' section above.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit
expenses, bank charges, exporter association fees, and commissions.
Regarding commissions, Habas incurred commissions only in relation to
U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S.
commissions by the lesser of the commission amount or home market
indirect selling expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and
added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the
Act.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable
costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars pursuant to section
773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415. Although the Department's
preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank,
the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for
Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on exchange
rates from the Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as
Factiva).
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the
respondents during the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret 0.26 (de minimis)
A.S................................................
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./.......
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S./...
Diler Dis Ticaret A.S............................... 0.02 (de minimis)
Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S......... 41.80
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler 0.00
Dis Ticaret A.S....................................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi 0.00
A.S................................................
Ilhanlar Rolling and Textile Industries, Ltd., Sti. 41.80
and Ilhanlar Group.................................
Intermet A.S........................................ 41.80
Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co.................... 41.80
Koc Dis Ticaret A.S................................. 41.80
Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S............................. 41.80
Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.................. 41.80
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S............... 41.80
Sozer Steel Works................................... 41.80
Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S............... 41.80
Yolbulanlar Nak. ve Ticaret A.S./...................
Yolbulan Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./..............
Yolbulan Dis Ticaret Ltd., Sti...................... 41.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are
filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases
briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs,
may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of
this notice. The Department will issue the final results of the
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written comments, within 120 days of publication of
these preliminary results.
Assessment
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
On March 9, 2006, Mitsui, an interested party to this proceeding,
submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of record for
certain of Diler's POR sales. We examined the information submitted by
Mitsui and tied it to the U.S. sales listing, as well as to
documentation obtained at the sales verification of Diler. We noted
that Mitsui was indeed the importer of record for the sales in
question. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer-specific
assessment rates, we have treated Mitsui as the importer of record for
Diler's relevant POR shipments.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by Habas and
Colakoglu, as well as for certain sales made by Diler, because we have
the reported entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated
importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those sales.
Regarding certain of Diler's and all of Ekinciler's sales, we note
that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S.
sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates for
[[Page 26463]]
the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount
by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad
valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in
these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies
did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, as
well as any companies for which we are rescinding the review based on
certifications of no shipments. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For
a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, de minimis within
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; (2)
for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published
for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review, or 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 merchandise; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to
be 16.06 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain
in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6881 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S