Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia, 45031-45034 [E6-12865]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS).1 The HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description remains dispositive.
Background
On January 28, 1994, the Department
published Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from
Brazil, 59 FR 4021 and the Amended
Final Determination and Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire
Rods from France, 59 FR 4022. On
August 2, 2000, the Department
published the Continuation of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, and
India, 65 FR 47403.
On July 1, 2005, the Department
initiated, and the ITC instituted, sunset
reviews of the AD orders on stainless
steel wire rods from Brazil and France.
See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset)
Reviews, 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005).
As a result of its sunset reviews of
these orders, the Department found that
revocation of these orders would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. See Stainless
Steel Wire Rods from Brazil, France,
and India; Notice of Final Results of
Five-year (Sunset) Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 67447
(November 7, 2005). The Department
notified the ITC of the magnitude of the
margins likely to prevail were the AD
orders to be revoked.
On June 29, 2006, the ITC determined,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act,
that revocation of these orders would
not be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time. See
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,
France and India, Investigations Nos.
731–TA–636, 731–TA–637, and 731–
TA–638 (Second Review), 70 FR 38207
(July 1, 2005).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Determination
As a result of the determination by the
ITC that revocation of these orders is not
likely to lead to the continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States, the
Department, pursuant to section 751(d)
of the Act is revoking the AD orders on
SSWR from Brazil and France. Pursuant
to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19
1 The merchandise subject to the scope of these
orders was originally classifiable under all of the
following HTS subheadings: 7221.00.0005,
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0040,7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060,
7221.00.0075, and 7221.00.0080. HTSUS
subheadings 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0040,
7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0080 are no longer contained
in the HTSUS.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of
the revocation is August 2, 2005 (i.e.,
the fifth anniversary of the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
the notices of continuation of these AD
orders.) The Department will notify U.S.
Customs and Border protection to
discontinue suspension of liquidation
and collection of cash deposits on
entries of subject merchandise entered
or withdrawn from warehouse on or
after August 2, 2005, the effective date
of revocation of these orders. The
Department will complete any
administrative reviews of these orders
and will conduct administrative reviews
of subject merchandise entered prior to
the effective date of revocation in
response to appropriately filed requests
for review.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and
this notice are in accordance with
section 751(d)(2) and published
pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary, for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12861 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–449–804)
Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Latvia
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Subler or Constance Handley at
(202) 482–0189 or (202) 482–0631,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from
Latvia. We preliminarily determine that
sales of subject merchandise by Joint
Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs (LM)
have been made below normal value
(NV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on appropriate entries based on
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45031
the difference between the export price
(EP) and the NV. Interested parties are
invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 7, 2001, the
Department issued an antidumping duty
order on rebar from Latvia. See
Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus,
Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People’s
Republic of China, Poland, Republic of
Korea and Ukraine, 66 FR 46777
(September 7, 2001). On September 1,
2005, the Department issued a notice of
opportunity to request the fourth
administrative review of this order. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 70 FR 52072
(September 1, 2005). On September 27,
2005, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), LM requested an
administrative review. On September
30, 2005, also in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(b), the Rebar Trade Action
Coalition (RTAC),1 the petitioner in this
proceeding, requested an administrative
review of LM. On October 25, 2005, the
Department published the notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review, covering the
period September 1, 2004, through
August 31, 2005 (the period of review,
or POR). See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 70 FR 61601 (October 25,
2005).
On November 22, 2005, the
Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to LM, specifying that the
responses to Section A and Sections B–
D would be due on December 13, 2005,
and, December 29, 2005, respectively.2
The Department received timely
responses to Sections A–D of the initial
antidumping questionnaire and
associated supplemental questionnaires.
1 RTAC comprises Nucor Corporation, Gerdau
Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals
Company.
2 Section A of the questionnaire requests general
information concerning a company’s corporate
structure and business practices, the merchandise
under review that it sells, and the manner in which
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.
Section B requests a complete listing of all home
market sales, or, if the home market is not viable,
of sales in the most appropriate third-country
market (this section is not applicable to respondents
in non-market economy cases). Section C requests
a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests
information on the cost of production of the foreign
like product and the constructed value of the
merchandise under review. Section E requests
information on further manufacturing.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45032
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
On May 4, 2006, the Department
published a notice of a sixty-day
extension of the time limit for the
preliminary results of this
administrative review. See Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia:
Extension of the Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
26335 (May 4, 2006). This notice
extended the deadline for the
preliminary results to August 1, 2006.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in
straight lengths, currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050,
7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000,
7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any
other tariff item number. Specifically
excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non–
deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that
has been further processed through
bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the EP to the NV, as
described in the Export Price and
Normal Value sections of this notice.
We first attempted to compare
contemporaneous sales of products sold
in the United States and comparison
market that are identical with respect to
the matching characteristics. Pursuant
to section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), all products
produced by the respondent that fit the
definition of the scope of the order and
were sold in the comparison market
during the POR fall within the
definition of the foreign like product.
We have relied on three criteria to
match U.S. sales of subject merchandise
to comparison market sales of the
foreign like product: type of steel, yield
strength, and size. Where there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the
comparison market, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the next most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed above.
U.S. Market Date of Sale
LM reported the commercial invoice
date as the date of sale in the U.S.
market. In order to determine whether
the invoice date is the appropriate date
of sale, we requested that LM submit
complete sales documentation (i.e.,
purchase contracts, contract addenda,
pro–forma invoices, appendices to the
purchase contracts, amendments to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
contract addenda, commercial invoices,
and mate’s receipts) for all U.S. sales
during the POR. LM provided this
information in its April 17, 2006,
supplemental questionnaire response.
We have preliminarily used the date
of the final purchase contract
amendment that modified the material
terms of sale (i.e., price, quantity within
a specified tolerance, and actual
products sold) as the U.S. market date
of sale because these amendments best
reflect the firm establishment of the
material terms of sale. The facts of the
current segment of the proceeding are
consistent with the facts of the third
administrative review, in which we also
found the date of final amendment to
each individual purchase contract to be
the date of sale.3 Because information in
LM’s sales documentation is business
proprietary, we have explained the date
of sale methodology in detail in the
calculation analysis memorandum. See
Memorandum from Shane Subler,
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to Constance Handley, Program
Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum for
Joint Stock Company Liepajas
Metalurgs, dated August 1, 2006
(Analysis Memorandum), for further
explanation of the selected U.S. market
date of sale. For all home market sales,
we have preliminarily used the invoice
date as the date of sale based on
information on the record.
Sales Transshipped to Third Countries
Through the United States
Upon reviewing Exhibit 11 of LM’s
April 17, 2006, supplemental response,
we found documentation of mate’s
receipts indicating that certain rebar
reported in LM’s U.S. sales database was
transshipped through the United States
to the British Virgin Islands and the
French West Indies. We confirmed that
a portion of the rebar covered by these
mate’s receipts did not enter U.S.
customs territory. Therefore, for sales
observations that included the
transshipped rebar, we removed the
quantity of transshipped rebar from the
total quantity in the sales observation.
See the Analysis Memorandum for
additional details.
Export Price
We calculated an EP for all of LM’s
U.S. sales because the merchandise was
sold directly by LM to the first
3 We note that the terminology used for LM’s
sales documentation varies by customer. As shown
in Exhibit 11 of LM’s April 17, 2006, supplemental
response, a purchase contract is equivalent to a
contract addendum, and an appendix is equivalent
to an amendment to the addendum. See the
Analysis Memorandum for a discussion on how the
material terms of sale are established by each of
these documents.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
unaffiliated purchaser for delivery to the
United States, and because constructed
export price (CEP) was not otherwise
warranted based on the facts of record.
We made deductions from the starting
price for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. Movement expenses included
inland freight, domestic brokerage and
handling expenses, and dunnage
expenses.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs
that NV be based on the price at which
the foreign like product is sold in the
home market, provided that the
merchandise is sold in sufficient
quantities (or value, if quantity is
inappropriate); that the time of the sales
reasonably corresponds to the time of
the sale used to determine EP; and that
there is no particular market situation
that prevents a proper comparison with
the EP. The statute contemplates that
quantities (or value) will normally be
considered insufficient if they are less
than five percent of the aggregate
quantity (or value) of sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States.
We found that LM had a viable home
market for rebar. As such, LM submitted
home market sales data for purposes of
the calculation of NV.
In deriving NV, we made adjustments
as detailed in the Calculation of Normal
Value Based on Comparison Market
Prices section below.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below–cost
sales in the final results of the third
administrative review, we had
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that home market sales of the foreign
like product by LM have been made at
prices below the cost of production
(COP) during the fourth POR. As a
result, the Department initiated a COP
inquiry for LM for the fourth POR.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated the weighted–
average COP, by model, based on the
sum of materials, fabrication, and
general and administrative (G&A)
expenses. We relied on LM’s submitted
average COP calculations for the POR
except that we have preliminarily
excluded the value of LM’s reported
income offset to G&A expenses. We
preliminarily find that the record does
not include sufficient information on
the nature of these offsets or their
corresponding costs to warrant
including them in the G&A calculation.
See the Analysis Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales
Prices
We compared the weighted–average
COPs for LM to its home–market sales
prices of the foreign like product, as
required under section 773(b) of the Act,
to determine whether these sales had
been made at prices below the COP
within an extended period of time (i.e.,
a period of one year) in substantial
quantities and whether such prices were
sufficient to permit the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time.
On a model–specific basis, we
compared the COP to the home market
prices, less any applicable movement
charges and direct and indirect selling
expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
We disregarded below–cost sales
where (1) 20 percent or more of LM’s
sales of a given product during the POR
were made at prices below the COP,
because such sales were made within an
extended period of time in substantial
quantities in accordance with sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2)
based on comparisons of price to
weighted–average COPs for the POR, we
determined that the below–cost sales of
the product were at prices which would
not permit recovery of all costs within
a reasonable time period, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We
found that LM made sales below cost,
and we disregarded such sales where
appropriate.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
We determined NV for LM as follows.
We made adjustments for any
differences in packing and deducted
home market movement expenses
pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition,
we made adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We
made COS adjustments for LM’s EP
transactions by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred for home market
sales (credit expenses) and adding U.S.
imputed credit expenses. In LM’s case,
the calculation of imputed credit
expenses results in a negative number
because LM’s U.S. sales are prepaid.
Therefore, the adjustment for U.S.
imputed credit reduces NV.
D. Level of Trade Adjustment
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 level of trade as the EP
transaction. The NV level of trade is that
of the starting–price sales in the
comparison market. For EP sales, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
U.S. level of trade is also the level of the
starting–price sale, which is usually
from exporter to importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different level of trade than EP
transactions, 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 level of trade 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
level of trade of the export transaction,
we make a level–of-trade adjustment
under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In conducting our level–of-trade
analysis, we examine the types of
customers, the channels of distribution,
and the selling practices of the
respondent. Generally, if the reported
levels of trade are the same, the
functions and activities of the seller
should be similar. Conversely, if a party
reports levels of trade that are different
for different categories of sales, the
functions and activities should be
dissimilar. We found the following.
For both the home market and U.S.
market, LM reported one channel of
distribution: direct sales. The company
reported three customer categories in
the home market: (1) Traders; (2) end
users; and (3) service centers. For all
three customer categories, LM
performed the following selling
activities: negotiations with customers,
order processing, packing, and delivery
services. Accordingly, we preliminarily
determine that LM’s home market sales
to these three customer categories
constitute a single LOT.
LM reported one customer category in
the U.S. market - traders. In comparing
the company’s U.S. sales to its home
market sales, we found that the selling
functions performed by LM were very
similar in the U.S. and Latvian markets.
For U.S. sales, LM conducts
negotiations with the traders, processes
orders, packs the merchandise, and
arranges delivery to the port. Therefore,
we preliminarily determine that U.S.
sales and home market sales were made
at the same level of trade.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars in accordance with section
773A of the Act, based on exchange
rates in effect on the date of the U.S.
sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45033
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily determine that the
following weighted–average margin
exists for the period September 1, 2004,
through August 31, 2005:
Producer
Joint Stock Company
Liepajas Metalurgs ..
Weighted–Average
Margin (Percentage)
6.03
The Department will disclose
calculations performed in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested
party may request a hearing within 30
days of publication of these preliminary
results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 44
days after the date of publication, or the
first working day thereafter. Interested
parties may submit case briefs and/or
written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these
preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs and
rebuttals to written comments, limited
to issues raised in such briefs or
comments, may be filed no later than 37
days after the date of publication.
Parties who submit arguments are
requested to submit with the argument
(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief
summary of the argument, and (3) a
table of authorities. Further, the parties
submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an
additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on diskette.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment
Upon completion of this
administrative review, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b), the Department will
calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. We will calculate
importer–specific duty assessment rates
on the basis of the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total quantity of the sales for that
importer. Where the assessment rate is
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP
to assess duties on all entries of subject
merchandise by that importer.
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
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
45034
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 8, 2006 / Notices
know their merchandise was destined
for the United States. In such instances,
the Department 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).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of rebar from Latvia
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate listed above for LM will be the rate
established in the final results of this
review, except if a rate is less than 0.5
percent, and therefore de minimis, the
cash deposit will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or 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, a prior
review, or the less–than-fair–value
(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) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 17.21 percent, the
‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entities during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
20:06 Aug 07, 2006
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–533–844)
Cash Deposit Requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Dated: August 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–12865 Filed 8–7–06; 8:45 am]
Jkt 208001
Notice of Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and
Final Negative Critical Circumstances
Determination: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: We determine that
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
certain lined paper products from India.
For information on the estimated
subsidy rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of
Liquidation’’ section of this notice.
Moreover, we determine that critical
circumstances do not exist with regard
to exports of CLPP from India. See the
‘‘Critical Circumstances’’ section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Copyak, AC/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
4012, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
Telephone: 202–482–2209.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
This investigation covers 12 programs
and the following manufacturer/
exporters: Aero Exports (Aero), Kejriwal
Exports, a division of Kejriwal Paper
Limited (Kejriwal), and Navneet
Publications India Ltd. (Navneet).
On February 15, 2006, the Department
of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register its
preliminary affirmative determination
in the countervailing duty investigation
of certain lined paper products from
India. See Notice of Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Preliminary Negative
Critical Circumstances Determination:
Certain Lined Paper Products from
India, 71 FR 7196 (February 15, 2006)
(Preliminary Determination).
We invited interested parties to
comment on the Preliminary
Determination. On June 14, 2006, we
received comments from petitioners and
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respondents.1 On June 19, 2006, we
received rebuttal comments from
petitioners and respondents.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is
April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.
Critical Circumstances
As explained in the Preliminary
Determination, petitioners requested
that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206, the
Department make an expedited finding
that critical circumstances exist with
respect to imports of lined paper
products from India. In the Preliminary
Determination, we determined that
critical circumstances did not exist. See
Preliminary Determination, 71 FR at
7917. For purposes of this final
determination, we continue to find that
critical circumstances do not exist as
petitioners’ allegation does not provide
a sufficient factual basis for making an
affirmative finding. See Memorandum
to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
from: Melissa G. Skinner, Director,
Operations, Office 3: Final Negative
Critical Circumstances Determination,
(July 31, 2006) (publicly on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B–
099 of the main building of the
Commerce Department).
Scope of the Investigation
For scope information, see Appendix
I.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’
(Decision Memorandum) dated July 31,
2006, which is hereby adopted by this
notice. A list of issues that parties have
raised and to which we have responded,
all of which are in the Decision
Memorandum, is attached to this notice
as Appendix II. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised
in this investigation and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the CRU. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memorandum
can be accessed directly on the World
Wide Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section
705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act fo 1930
1 Petitioners are the Association of American
School Paper Suppliers.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45031-45034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12865]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-449-804)
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler or Constance Handley at
(202) 482-0189 or (202) 482-0631, respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street & Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete
reinforcing bars (rebar) from Latvia. We preliminarily determine that
sales of subject merchandise by Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs
(LM) have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate
entries based on the difference between the export price (EP) and the
NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 7, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping duty
order on rebar from Latvia. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's
Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 FR 46777
(September 7, 2001). On September 1, 2005, the Department issued a
notice of opportunity to request the fourth administrative review of
this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,
70 FR 52072 (September 1, 2005). On September 27, 2005, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b), LM requested an administrative review. On
September 30, 2005, also in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the
Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC),\1\ the petitioner in this
proceeding, requested an administrative review of LM. On October 25,
2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period September
1, 2004, through August 31, 2005 (the period of review, or POR). See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RTAC comprises Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel
Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 22, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to LM, specifying that the responses to Section A and
Sections B-D would be due on December 13, 2005, and, December 29, 2005,
respectively.\2\ The Department received timely responses to Sections
A-D of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated
supplemental questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests
a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market
is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy
cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section
D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review.
Section E requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45032]]
On May 4, 2006, the Department published a notice of a sixty-day
extension of the time limit for the preliminary results of this
administrative review. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia:
Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26335 (May 4, 2006). This notice
extended the deadline for the preliminary results to August 1, 2006.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing
bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers
7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000,
7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded
are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has
been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and
Normal Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare
contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and
comparison market that are identical with respect to the matching
characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), all products produced by the respondent that fit
the definition of the scope of the order and were sold in the
comparison market during the POR fall within the definition of the
foreign like product. We have relied on three criteria to match U.S.
sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign
like product: type of steel, yield strength, and size. Where there were
no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market, we compared
U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product on
the basis of the characteristics listed above.
U.S. Market Date of Sale
LM reported the commercial invoice date as the date of sale in the
U.S. market. In order to determine whether the invoice date is the
appropriate date of sale, we requested that LM submit complete sales
documentation (i.e., purchase contracts, contract addenda, pro-forma
invoices, appendices to the purchase contracts, amendments to the
contract addenda, commercial invoices, and mate's receipts) for all
U.S. sales during the POR. LM provided this information in its April
17, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response.
We have preliminarily used the date of the final purchase contract
amendment that modified the material terms of sale (i.e., price,
quantity within a specified tolerance, and actual products sold) as the
U.S. market date of sale because these amendments best reflect the firm
establishment of the material terms of sale. The facts of the current
segment of the proceeding are consistent with the facts of the third
administrative review, in which we also found the date of final
amendment to each individual purchase contract to be the date of
sale.\3\ Because information in LM's sales documentation is business
proprietary, we have explained the date of sale methodology in detail
in the calculation analysis memorandum. See Memorandum from Shane
Subler, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Constance Handley,
Program Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum for Joint Stock Company
Liepajas Metalurgs, dated August 1, 2006 (Analysis Memorandum), for
further explanation of the selected U.S. market date of sale. For all
home market sales, we have preliminarily used the invoice date as the
date of sale based on information on the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We note that the terminology used for LM's sales
documentation varies by customer. As shown in Exhibit 11 of LM's
April 17, 2006, supplemental response, a purchase contract is
equivalent to a contract addendum, and an appendix is equivalent to
an amendment to the addendum. See the Analysis Memorandum for a
discussion on how the material terms of sale are established by each
of these documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Transshipped to Third Countries Through the United States
Upon reviewing Exhibit 11 of LM's April 17, 2006, supplemental
response, we found documentation of mate's receipts indicating that
certain rebar reported in LM's U.S. sales database was transshipped
through the United States to the British Virgin Islands and the French
West Indies. We confirmed that a portion of the rebar covered by these
mate's receipts did not enter U.S. customs territory. Therefore, for
sales observations that included the transshipped rebar, we removed the
quantity of transshipped rebar from the total quantity in the sales
observation. See the Analysis Memorandum for additional details.
Export Price
We calculated an EP for all of LM's U.S. sales because the
merchandise was sold directly by LM to the first unaffiliated purchaser
for delivery to the United States, and because constructed export price
(CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland
freight, domestic brokerage and handling expenses, and dunnage
expenses.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if
quantity is inappropriate); that the time of the sales reasonably
corresponds to the time of the sale used to determine EP; and that
there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper
comparison with the EP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or
value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than
five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the
subject merchandise to the United States.
We found that LM had a viable home market for rebar. As such, LM
submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV.
In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation
of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices section below.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the final results of the
third administrative review, we had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by LM have
been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the
fourth POR. As a result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for LM
for the fourth POR.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials,
fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We relied
on LM's submitted average COP calculations for the POR except that we
have preliminarily excluded the value of LM's reported income offset to
G&A expenses. We preliminarily find that the record does not include
sufficient information on the nature of these offsets or their
corresponding costs to warrant including them in the G&A calculation.
See the Analysis Memorandum.
[[Page 45033]]
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average COPs for LM to its home-market
sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section
773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at
prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a period
of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were
sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time.
On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market
prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect
selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of
LM's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below
the COP, because such sales were made within an extended period of time
in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the Act; and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-
average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of
the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that LM made sales below cost, and we
disregarded such sales where appropriate.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We determined NV for LM as follows. We made adjustments for any
differences in packing and deducted home market movement expenses
pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In
addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS
adjustments for LM's EP transactions by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expenses) and adding
U.S. imputed credit expenses. In LM's case, the calculation of imputed
credit expenses results in a negative number because LM's U.S. sales
are prepaid. Therefore, the adjustment for U.S. imputed credit reduces
NV.
D. Level of Trade Adjustment
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 level of trade as the EP transaction. The NV level of trade is
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP
sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price
sale, which is usually from exporter to importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP transactions, 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 level of trade 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 level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In conducting our level-of-trade analysis, we examine the types of
customers, the channels of distribution, and the selling practices of
the respondent. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the
same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar.
Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that are different for
different categories of sales, the functions and activities should be
dissimilar. We found the following.
For both the home market and U.S. market, LM reported one channel
of distribution: direct sales. The company reported three customer
categories in the home market: (1) Traders; (2) end users; and (3)
service centers. For all three customer categories, LM performed the
following selling activities: negotiations with customers, order
processing, packing, and delivery services. Accordingly, we
preliminarily determine that LM's home market sales to these three
customer categories constitute a single LOT.
LM reported one customer category in the U.S. market - traders. In
comparing the company's U.S. sales to its home market sales, we found
that the selling functions performed by LM were very similar in the
U.S. and Latvian markets. For U.S. sales, LM conducts negotiations with
the traders, processes orders, packs the merchandise, and arranges
delivery to the port. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that U.S.
sales and home market sales were made at the same level of trade.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average margin exists for the period September 1,
2004, through August 31, 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer Margin (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs............. 6.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the
date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days
after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are
requested to submit with the argument (1) A statement of the issue, (2)
a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such
comments on diskette.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment
Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty
assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
quantity of the sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries
of subject merchandise by that importer.
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
[[Page 45034]]
know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such
instances, the Department 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
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
rebar from Latvia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of
the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate listed above for LM will be the rate
established in the final results of this review, except if a rate is
less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis, the cash deposit will
be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 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, a prior review, or the less-than-
fair-value (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) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 17.21
percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entities during this review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-12865 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S