Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52766-52770 [E6-14848]

Download as PDF rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 52766 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semi–annual anniversary month, will be the sixmonth period immediately preceding the semi–annual anniversary month. As discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper review of Shanghai Bloom is December 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Pursuant to the Department’s regulations, in cases involving non– market economies, the Department requires that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country– wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company’s export activities. Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Shanghai Bloom, including a separate rates section. The review will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Shanghai Bloom is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of honey. However, if Shanghai Bloom does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, then the company will be deemed not separate from other companies that exported during the POI and the new shipper review will be rescinded as to Shanghai Bloom. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Bloom and manufactured by Jindeya must continue to post a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current PRC–wide rate of 212.39 percent. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department’s regulations. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:11 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 Dated: August 30, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–14846 Filed 9–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–841] Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from the Committee for Fair Beam Imports, Nucor Corp., Nucor–Yamato Steel Co., Steel Dynamics, Inc. and TXI–Chaparral Steel Co., (collectively, petitioners), INI Steel Company (INI), and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers INI and DSM, manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that INI has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. We also preliminarily determine that DSM has not sold subject merchandise at less than NV. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 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. AGENCY: EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke or Steve Bezirganian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5604 or (202) 482–1131 respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Background On August 1, 2005 the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005 petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of DSM, a Korean producer of subject merchandise. Also, on August 31, 2005, DSM and INI requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of subject merchandise during the POR. On September 28, 2005 the Department published a notice of initiation of a review of structural steel beams from Korea covering the period August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 3, 2005 the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaires to INI and to DSM. Because we disregarded sales of certain products made by INI at prices below the cost of production (COP) in what was, at that time, the most recently completed review of structural steel beams from Korea (see Structural Steel Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6837 (February 9, 2005)), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect INI made sales of the foreign like product at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, from the outset of this review we required INI to respond to section D of the questionnaire. On November 4, 2005, the Department granted approval of INI’s October 12, 2005 request to shift its cost reporting period for section D. The Department had not disregarded sales of structural steel beams made by DSM at prices below the COP in the most recently completed review of DSM; therefore, DSM was not initially required to respond to section D of the questionnaire. However, on December 19, 2005 petitioners alleged that DSM sold the foreign like product at prices below its COP. On January 9, 2006, the Department initiated a cost investigation of DSM based upon the determination that petitioners’ allegation established reasonable grounds to believe or suspect sales below cost, and instructed DSM to E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices respond to section D of the questionnaire. From November 2005 through June 2006, INI and DSM submitted timely responses to the initial questionnaire and to the Department’s subsequent supplemental questionnaires. Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on April 17, 2006, we published in the Federal Register our notice of the extension of time limits for this review. Structural Steel Beams from the Republic of Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 19714 (April 17, 2006). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as August 31, 2006. Period of Review The POR is from August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are doubly–symmetric shapes, whether hot- or cold–rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. These products include, but are not limited to, wide– flange beams (‘‘W’’ shapes), bearing piles (‘‘HP’’ shapes), standard beams (‘‘S’’ or ‘‘I’’ shapes) and ‘‘M’’ shapes. All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches. The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7216.32.00000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7228.70.3010, 7228.70.3041 and 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all structural steel beams produced by DSM and INI covered by the description in VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:11 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this notice, supra, which were sold in the home market during the reporting period for home market sales, to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to structural steel beams products sold in the United States. In making product comparisons, we matched products based on the physical characteristics identified in our questionnaire and reported by DSM and INI as follows (listed in order of preference): hot–formed or cold–formed, shape/size (section depth), strength/ grade and whether or not coated. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the questionnaire, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of structural steel beams from Korea to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP) to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ ‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted–average NVs of the foreign like product where there were sales at prices above the COP, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production’’ section below. Export Price and Constructed Export Price Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States as adjusted under subsection (c).’’ Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).’’ For the PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52767 purposes of this administrative review, INI has classified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales. DSM has classified all of its U.S. sales as CEP sales. INI For INI we calculated the price of U.S. sales made prior to importation to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the reported gross unit price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from plant to warehouse, foreign inland freight from plant/ warehouse to port of exportation, foreign warehousing, international freight, U.S. duties, and U.S. brokerage expenses. We made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. See Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results for INI Steel Company (INI Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) from Steve Bezirganian to the File, dated August 31, 2006. DSM For DSM we calculated CEP based on the prices from DSM’s U.S. affiliate, Dongkuk International, Inc. (DKA) to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling international freight, marine insurance, other U.S. transportation expenses (i.e., U.S. brokerage and handling charges), and U.S. customs duty. Additionally, we made deductions for expenses that bear a direct relationship to the sale in the United States (i.e., credit, and other direct selling expenses) pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(B). We added an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772 (d)(3) of the Tariff Act. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Tariff Act, we computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1 52768 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP transaction. 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, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP sales, the LOT is also the level of the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, the LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and that 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 Tariff Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and CEP sales affect price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8; see also Certain Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot– Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005). In identifying LOTs for CEP, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:11 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports LOTs that are different among categories of sales, the functions and activities should be dissimilar. See Porcelain–on-Steel Cookware from Mexico; Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6. In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we obtained information from INI and DSM about the marketing stages involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including descriptions of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. INI INI indicated its home market sales were made through two channels (sales to unaffiliated distributors, and sales to affiliated and unaffiliated end–users) and its U.S. sales were through one channel (to unaffiliated U.S. customers). INI did not claim any distinct LOTs, and its descriptions of selling functions indicated very little variation across channels and markets. Based upon the information on record, we have determined that there is only one LOT in both markets for INI. See INI Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. DSM DSM claimed one LOT in the home market. DSM reported it sold through one channel of distribution whereby merchandise was sold directly from its factories to unaffiliated customers (distributors and end–users). See DSM’s November 7, 2005 section A response at 15. DSM also claimed only one LOT in the U.S. market, reporting it sold through one channel of distribution in the United States. DSM’s sales were made directly from its production facilities in Korea to its U.S. affiliate, DKA, which resold the merchandise to the unaffiliated U.S. customer (classified as an end–user). See DSM’s November 7, 2005 section A response at 15. DSM maintains the constructed LOT from DSM to DKA is much less advanced than the actual LOT of home market sales, claiming DSM performs a limited range of selling activities on sales to the United States. See DSM’s November 7, 2005 section A response at 19 and DSM’s January 20, 2006 supplemental questionnaire response at Appendix SA–16. However, from our analysis of the information on record, we have determined that most selling functions were performed at an equal level of intensity in both the home and U.S. markets. See Administrative PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results for Dongkuk Steel Mill Company, Ltd. (DSM Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) from Maryanne Burke to the File, dated August 31, 2006. Therefore, we found no basis for accepting a distinct, less advanced LOT for U.S. sales than for home market sales and conclude no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market 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 greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondents’ volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Because both respondents’ aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of their aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable for both INI and DSM. See INI’s June 30, 2006 supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit A–48 and DSM’s December 2, 2005 section B response at Exhibit SA– 1. B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm’s–Length Test The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the respondent, (i.e., sales at arm’s–length). See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm’s– length prices are excluded from our analysis because we consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b). INI reported it had made home market sales to affiliated end–users. To test whether INI’s sales to affiliates were made at arm’s–length prices, we compared on a model–specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all direct selling expenses, discounts and rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where applicable, we also made adjustments to gross unit price for reported billing adjustments. Where prices to the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm’s length. In accordance with the Department’s practice, we disregarded sales to affiliated parties that we determined were not made at arm’s length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 2002). We found that an INI affiliated home market customer failed the arm’s–length test and, in accordance with the Department’s practice, we excluded sales to this affiliate from our analysis. DSM reported no sales to affiliated parties in the home market. C. Cost of Production Analysis In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated the weighted–average COP for each model based on the sum of material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP data reported by INI and DSM; however, we made adjustments to INI’s G&A and financial expense ratio (INTEX). See the Department’s Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - INI Steel Company from Frederick W. Mines to Neal M. Halper (INI Cost Calculation Memorandum), dated August 31, 2006. For DSM, we made an adjustment to its reported INTEX ratio. See the Department’s Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Dongkuk Steel Mill Company, Ltd. from Trinette Boyd to Neal M. Halper (DSM Cost Calculation Memorandum), dated August 31, 2006. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent’s home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below– cost sales of that model because we determined that the below–cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of the respondent’s home market sales VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:11 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below–cost sales because: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in ‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted– average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether INI made sales at prices below COP, we compared the product–specific COP figures to home market prices net of reported billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and applicable movement expenses of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. Our cost test for INI revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales volume (by weight) of those models were at prices below COP. Therefore, we retained all such sales observations in our analysis and used them in the calculation of NV. Our cost test also indicated that for other models of subject merchandise produced by INI, 20 percent or more of the home market sales volume (by weight) were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, for INI we excluded these below–cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above–cost sales in the calculation of NV. To determine whether DSM made sales at prices below COP, we compared the product–specific COP figures to home market prices net of discounts and rebates and applicable movement charges of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. We found DSM did not have any models for which 20 percent or more of sales volume (by weight) were below cost during the POR. Therefore, we did not disregard any of DSM’s home market sales and included all such sales in our calculation of NV. D. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, for both INI and DSM, we calculated CV based on the sum of the respondent’s material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52769 Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the weighted– average home market direct and indirect selling expenses. For these preliminary results the Department did not use CV in its margin calculation analysis for either INI or DSM. E. Price–to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers and prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm’s length for home market sale observations that passed the cost test, and made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act. For INI we made adjustments to gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates and made deductions, where applicable, for foreign inland freight (i.e., inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse), warehousing expenses and inland freight from plant/distribution warehouse to customer, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing expenses. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of INI merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS), where applicable, for commissions, home market credit expenses, warranty expenses, and U.S. imputed credit expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For DSM, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We accounted for billing adjustments, interest revenue and discounts and rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, insurance, and handling. We also removed home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in COS, where applicable, for imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1 52770 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 173 / Thursday, September 7, 2006 / Notices for merchandise exported by INI and DSM which is subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003 Preliminary Results of Review (68 FR 23954). See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: As a result of our review, we Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 preliminarily determine the weighted– average dumping margins for the period FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005 to clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR be as follows: produced by INI and DSM for which Manufacturer / Exporter Margin they did not know their merchandise would be exported by another company INI Steel Company ................... 1.91% to the United States. In such instances, Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. ..... 0.00% we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the All–Others The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in of the date of publication of this notice the transaction. in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a Revocation of the Order - Cash Deposits hearing within thirty days of Not Required publication of these preliminary results. On March 15, 2006, the United States See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if International Trade Commission (ITC) requested, will be held 37 days after the determined that the revocation of the date of publication, or the first business antidumping duty orders on structural day thereafter, unless the Department steel beams from Korea would not likely alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). lead to continuation or recurrence of Interested parties may submit case briefs material injury to an industry in the or written comments no later than 30 United States within a reasonably days after the date of publication of foreseeable time. Consequently, the these preliminary results of review. Department has revoked this order, Rebuttals to written comments, limited effective August 18, 2005. See to issues raised in the case briefs and Revocation of Antidumping and comments, may be filed no later than 35 Countervailing Duty Orders: Structural days after the date of publication of this Steel Beams from Japan and South notice. Parties who submit arguments in Korea, 71 FR 15375 (March 28, 2006). these proceedings are requested to Therefore, there will be no need to issue submit with the argument: (1) A new cash deposit instructions for this statement of the issue, (2) a brief administrative review. summary of the argument, and (3) a Notification to Importers table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case This notice also serves as a briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written preliminary reminder to importers of comments provided the Department their responsibility under 19 CFR with an additional copy of the public 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding version of any such argument on the reimbursement of antidumping diskette. The Department will issue duties prior to liquidation of the final results of this administrative relevant entries during this review review, including the results of our period. Failure to comply with this analysis of the issues in any such case requirement could result in the briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written Secretary’s presumption that comments or at a hearing, within 120 reimbursement of antidumping duties days of publication of these preliminary occurred and the subsequent assessment results. of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this Assessment notice in accordance with sections Upon completion of this review the 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Department will determine, and CBP Dated: August 31, 2006. will assess, antidumping duties on all David M. Spooner, appropriate entries. In accordance with Assistant Secretary for Import 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1) we have Administration. calculated importer–specific (or, where [FR Doc. E6–14848 Filed 9–6–06; 8:45 am] the importer was unknown, customer– specific) ad valorem assessment rates BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:11 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–427–810] Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat products (‘‘CORE’’) from France for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. We preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for the company under review is de minimis. See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section of this notice, infra. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. (See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section, infra). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register the CVD order on CORE from France. See Countervailing Duty Order and Amendment to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from France, 58 FR 43759 (August 17, 1993). On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, we received a timely request for review from Duferco Coating S.A. and Sorral S.A. (collectively, ‘‘Duferco Sorral’’), a French producer and exporter of subject merchandise, and from the United States Steel Corporation (‘‘the petitioner’’). On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on CORE from France, covering the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. See E:\FR\FM\07SEN1.SGM 07SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 173 (Thursday, September 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52766-52770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14848]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-841]


Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the Committee for Fair Beam 
Imports, Nucor Corp., Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., Steel Dynamics, Inc. and 
TXI-Chaparral Steel Co., (collectively, petitioners), INI Steel Company 
(INI), and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from the Republic of 
Korea (Korea). This review covers INI and DSM, manufacturers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is 
August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005.
    We preliminarily determine that INI has sold subject merchandise at 
less than normal value (NV) during the POR. We also preliminarily 
determine that DSM has not sold subject merchandise at less than NV. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 
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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke or Steve Bezirganian, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-5604 or (202) 482-1131 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 1, 2005 the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
structural steel beams from Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005 
petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of DSM, a Korean producer of subject merchandise. Also, on 
August 31, 2005, DSM and INI requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of their sales of subject merchandise during the 
POR. On September 28, 2005 the Department published a notice of 
initiation of a review of structural steel beams from Korea covering 
the period August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 3, 
2005 the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaires to INI 
and to DSM.
    Because we disregarded sales of certain products made by INI at 
prices below the cost of production (COP) in what was, at that time, 
the most recently completed review of structural steel beams from Korea 
(see Structural Steel Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6837 (February 9, 2005)), 
we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect INI made sales of the 
foreign like product at prices below the COP, as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff 
Act). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, from 
the outset of this review we required INI to respond to section D of 
the questionnaire. On November 4, 2005, the Department granted approval 
of INI's October 12, 2005 request to shift its cost reporting period 
for section D. The Department had not disregarded sales of structural 
steel beams made by DSM at prices below the COP in the most recently 
completed review of DSM; therefore, DSM was not initially required to 
respond to section D of the questionnaire. However, on December 19, 
2005 petitioners alleged that DSM sold the foreign like product at 
prices below its COP. On January 9, 2006, the Department initiated a 
cost investigation of DSM based upon the determination that 
petitioners' allegation established reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect sales below cost, and instructed DSM to

[[Page 52767]]

respond to section D of the questionnaire.
    From November 2005 through June 2006, INI and DSM submitted timely 
responses to the initial questionnaire and to the Department's 
subsequent supplemental questionnaires. Because it was not practicable 
to complete this review within the normal time frame, on April 17, 
2006, we published in the Federal Register our notice of the extension 
of time limits for this review. Structural Steel Beams from the 
Republic of Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 19714 (April 17, 2006). 
This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results 
as August 31, 2006.

Period of Review

    The POR is from August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are doubly-symmetric shapes, 
whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, 
having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), 
whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or 
not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. These products 
include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (``W'' shapes), 
bearing piles (``HP'' shapes), standard beams (``S'' or ``I'' shapes) 
and ``M'' shapes. All products that meet the physical and metallurgical 
descriptions provided above are within the scope of this order unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this order: structural steel 
beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section 
height (also known as depth) over 40 inches.
    The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheadings: 7216.32.00000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 
7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 
7228.70.3010, 7228.70.3041 and 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all structural steel beams produced by DSM and INI covered by the 
description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice, 
supra, which were sold in the home market during the reporting period 
for home market sales, to be the foreign like product for the purpose 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to structural steel 
beams products sold in the United States. In making product 
comparisons, we matched products based on the physical characteristics 
identified in our questionnaire and reported by DSM and INI as follows 
(listed in order of preference): hot-formed or cold-formed, shape/size 
(section depth), strength/grade and whether or not coated. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to 
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign 
like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting 
instructions listed in the questionnaire, or to constructed value (CV), 
as appropriate.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of structural steel beams from Korea to 
the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export 
price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP) to NV, as described in 
the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average NVs of the 
foreign like product where there were sales at prices above the COP, as 
discussed in the ``Cost of Production'' section below.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ``the price at which 
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States as adjusted under subsection (c).'' Section 772(b) of 
the Tariff Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).'' For 
the purposes of this administrative review, INI has classified all of 
its U.S. sales as EP sales. DSM has classified all of its U.S. sales as 
CEP sales.

INI

    For INI we calculated the price of U.S. sales made prior to 
importation to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions from the reported gross unit price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, 
where appropriate, foreign inland freight from plant to warehouse, 
foreign inland freight from plant/warehouse to port of exportation, 
foreign warehousing, international freight, U.S. duties, and U.S. 
brokerage expenses. We made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback 
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. See Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Structural Steel Beams from 
Korea: Preliminary Results for INI Steel Company (INI Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum) from Steve Bezirganian to the File, dated August 
31, 2006.

DSM

    For DSM we calculated CEP based on the prices from DSM's U.S. 
affiliate, Dongkuk International, Inc. (DKA) to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, 
where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
export, foreign brokerage and handling international freight, marine 
insurance, other U.S. transportation expenses (i.e., U.S. brokerage and 
handling charges), and U.S. customs duty. Additionally, we made 
deductions for expenses that bear a direct relationship to the sale in 
the United States (i.e., credit, and other direct selling expenses) 
pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(B). We added an amount for duty drawback 
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act.
    For CEP sales we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance 
with section 772 (d)(3) of the Tariff Act. We deducted the profit 
allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) 
of the Tariff Act in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of 
the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Tariff Act, we 
computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the 
U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. 
We then allocated profit expenses incurred with respect to U.S. 
economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S.

[[Page 52768]]

expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to 
the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP 
transaction. 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, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and 
profit. For EP sales, the LOT is also the level of the starting price 
sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP 
sales, the LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter 
to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. 
If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and that 
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 Tariff Act. 
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the 
differences in the levels between NV and CEP sales affect price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff 
Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada, 67 FR 8781 
(February 26, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum 
at Comment 8; see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality 
Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005), unchanged in 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from 
Brazil, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005).
    In identifying LOTs for CEP, we considered only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Tech., Inc. 
v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, 
if the reported LOTs are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the 
functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, 
if a party reports LOTs that are different among categories of sales, 
the functions and activities should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-
Steel Cookware from Mexico; Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 
FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum at Comment 6.
    In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we 
obtained information from INI and DSM about the marketing stages 
involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including 
descriptions of the selling activities performed for each channel of 
distribution.

INI

    INI indicated its home market sales were made through two channels 
(sales to unaffiliated distributors, and sales to affiliated and 
unaffiliated end-users) and its U.S. sales were through one channel (to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers). INI did not claim any distinct LOTs, and 
its descriptions of selling functions indicated very little variation 
across channels and markets. Based upon the information on record, we 
have determined that there is only one LOT in both markets for INI. See 
INI Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

DSM

    DSM claimed one LOT in the home market. DSM reported it sold 
through one channel of distribution whereby merchandise was sold 
directly from its factories to unaffiliated customers (distributors and 
end-users). See DSM's November 7, 2005 section A response at 15. DSM 
also claimed only one LOT in the U.S. market, reporting it sold through 
one channel of distribution in the United States. DSM's sales were made 
directly from its production facilities in Korea to its U.S. affiliate, 
DKA, which resold the merchandise to the unaffiliated U.S. customer 
(classified as an end-user). See DSM's November 7, 2005 section A 
response at 15.
    DSM maintains the constructed LOT from DSM to DKA is much less 
advanced than the actual LOT of home market sales, claiming DSM 
performs a limited range of selling activities on sales to the United 
States. See DSM's November 7, 2005 section A response at 19 and DSM's 
January 20, 2006 supplemental questionnaire response at Appendix SA-16. 
However, from our analysis of the information on record, we have 
determined that most selling functions were performed at an equal level 
of intensity in both the home and U.S. markets. See Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Structural Steel Beams from 
Korea: Preliminary Results for Dongkuk Steel Mill Company, Ltd. (DSM 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) from Maryanne Burke to the File, dated 
August 31, 2006. Therefore, we found no basis for accepting a distinct, 
less advanced LOT for U.S. sales than for home market sales and 
conclude no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market
    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 
greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the respondents' volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Because both 
respondents' aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was greater than five percent of their aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was 
viable for both INI and DSM. See INI's June 30, 2006 supplemental 
questionnaire response at Exhibit A-48 and DSM's December 2, 2005 
section B response at Exhibit SA-1.
B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
    The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated 
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the respondent, (i.e., sales at arm's-length). See 19 
CFR 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not 
made at arm's-length prices are excluded from our analysis because we 
consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 
351.102(b).
    INI reported it had made home market sales to affiliated end-users. 
To test whether INI's sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length 
prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of 
sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all direct 
selling expenses, discounts and rebates, movement charges, and packing. 
Where applicable, we also made adjustments to gross unit price for 
reported billing adjustments. Where prices to the affiliated party 
were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price

[[Page 52769]]

of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we 
determined the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. 
In accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded sales to 
affiliated parties that we determined were not made at arm's length. 
See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary 
Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 2002). We found that 
an INI affiliated home market customer failed the arm's-length test 
and, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded sales to 
this affiliate from our analysis. DSM reported no sales to affiliated 
parties in the home market.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we 
calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of 
material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on 
the COP data reported by INI and DSM; however, we made adjustments to 
INI's G&A and financial expense ratio (INTEX). See the Department's 
Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Preliminary Results - INI Steel Company from Frederick W. Mines to 
Neal M. Halper (INI Cost Calculation Memorandum), dated August 31, 
2006. For DSM, we made an adjustment to its reported INTEX ratio. See 
the Department's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Dongkuk Steel Mill Company, 
Ltd. from Trinette Boyd to Neal M. Halper (DSM Cost Calculation 
Memorandum), dated August 31, 2006. In determining whether to disregard 
home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in 
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, 
whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in 
substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices 
which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less 
than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given model 
were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales 
of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not 
made within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' 
Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a 
given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales because: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in 
``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Tariff Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to 
the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would 
not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act.
    To determine whether INI made sales at prices below COP, we 
compared the product-specific COP figures to home market prices net of 
reported billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and applicable 
movement expenses of the foreign like product as required under section 
773(b) of the Tariff Act. Our cost test for INI revealed that for home 
market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales 
volume (by weight) of those models were at prices below COP. Therefore, 
we retained all such sales observations in our analysis and used them 
in the calculation of NV. Our cost test also indicated that for other 
models of subject merchandise produced by INI, 20 percent or more of 
the home market sales volume (by weight) were sold at prices below COP 
within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, for 
INI we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the 
remaining above-cost sales in the calculation of NV.
    To determine whether DSM made sales at prices below COP, we 
compared the product-specific COP figures to home market prices net of 
discounts and rebates and applicable movement charges of the foreign 
like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act.
    We found DSM did not have any models for which 20 percent or more 
of sales volume (by weight) were below cost during the POR. Therefore, 
we did not disregard any of DSM's home market sales and included all 
such sales in our calculation of NV.
D. Constructed Value
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, for both INI 
and DSM, we calculated CV based on the sum of the respondent's material 
and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. 
We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the ``Cost 
of Production Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and 
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. 
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market direct 
and indirect selling expenses. For these preliminary results the 
Department did not use CV in its margin calculation analysis for either 
INI or DSM.
E. Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers and 
prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length for 
home market sale observations that passed the cost test, and made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff 
Act.
    For INI we made adjustments to gross unit price, where applicable, 
for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates and made deductions, 
where applicable, for foreign inland freight (i.e., inland freight from 
plant to distribution warehouse), warehousing expenses and inland 
freight from plant/distribution warehouse to customer, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing expenses. In addition, we made adjustments 
for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of INI merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 
of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS), where applicable, for 
commissions, home market credit expenses, warranty expenses, and U.S. 
imputed credit expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 
of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
    For DSM, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers. We accounted for billing adjustments, interest revenue and 
discounts and rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions for 
foreign inland freight, insurance, and handling. We also removed home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, we made 
adjustments for differences in COS, where applicable, for imputed 
credit expenses and warranty expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

[[Page 52770]]

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in 
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margins for the period August 1, 2004 through July 31, 
2005 to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Manufacturer / Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INI Steel Company..........................................        1.91%
Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd................................        0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 
days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the 
date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the 
Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties 
may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. 
Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date 
of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these 
proceedings 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, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case 
briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments provided the Department 
with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on 
diskette. The Department will issue final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments 
or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.

Assessment

    Upon completion of this review the Department will determine, and 
CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1) we have calculated importer-
specific (or, where the importer was unknown, customer-specific) ad 
valorem assessment rates for merchandise exported by INI and DSM which 
is subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate 
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication 
of the final results of this review. The Department clarified its 
``automatic assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). See 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will 
apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by INI 
and DSM for which they did not know their merchandise would be exported 
by another company to the United States. 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.

Revocation of the Order - Cash Deposits Not Required

    On March 15, 2006, the United States International Trade Commission 
(ITC) determined that the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on 
structural steel beams from Korea would not likely lead to continuation 
or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States 
within a reasonably foreseeable time. Consequently, the Department has 
revoked this order, effective August 18, 2005. See Revocation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Structural Steel Beams from 
Japan and South Korea, 71 FR 15375 (March 28, 2006). Therefore, there 
will be no need to issue new cash deposit instructions for this 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also 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 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 this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-14848 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S