Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59739-59744 [E6-16820]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Notices
statutory time limit of 180 days.
Accordingly, the Department is
extending the time limit for the
completion of the preliminary results of
the new shipper reviews of Nanjing
Merry, Leping Lotai, and Weishan
Hongrun by 90 days from the original
October 25, 2006, deadline.
Additionally, the Department is
extending the time limit for the
completion of the preliminary results of
the new shipper review of Shanghai
Strong by 65 days from the original
November 19, 2006, deadline. The
preliminary results for all four new
shipper reviews will now be due
January 23, 2007, in accordance with
section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.214(i)(2). The final results will,
in turn, be due 90 days after the date of
issuance of the preliminary results,
unless extended.
This notice is published pursuant to
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: September 3, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration
[FR Doc. E6–16819 Filed 10–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–580–829)
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by
domestic interested parties,1 the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel wire rod (‘‘SSWR’’) from the
Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’). This
review covers two producer/exporters of
the subject merchandise that have been
collapsed for purposes of the
Department’s analysis, consistent with
the record of this review and prior
determinations in this proceeding. The
period of review (‘‘POR’’) is September
1, 2004, through August 31, 2005.
The Department has preliminarily
determined that the companies subject
pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 The domestic interested parties are Carpenter
Technology Corporation; Dunkirk Specialty Steel,
LLC, a subsidiary of Universal Stainless & Alloy
Products; and North American Stainless
(hereinafter, the ‘‘Domestic Interested Parties’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Oct 10, 2006
Jkt 211001
to this review made U.S. sales of SSWR
at prices less than normal value (‘‘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. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results of
review. We will issue the final results of
review no later than 120 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karine Gziryan or Malcolm Burke, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482–4081 and (202)
482–3584, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 15, 1998, the
Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on
SSWR from Korea. See Notice of
Amendment of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless
Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR
49331 (September 15, 1998) (‘‘Amended
Final Determination’’) and Stainless
Steel Wire Rod From Korea:
Amendment of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value Pursuant
to Court Decision, 66 FR 41550 (August
8, 2001) (‘‘Amended Final
Determination Pursuant to Court
Decision’’).2 In September 2005, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to
Request Administrative Review’’ of the
antidumping duty order on SSWR from
Korea. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 70
FR 52072 ( September 1, 2005).
On September 30, 2005, in accordance
with 19 CFR § 351.213(b)(1), the
Domestic Interested Parties requested
that the Department conduct a review of
Changwon and Dongbang Special Steel
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dongbang’’), and any of their
affiliates (collectively, as a collapsed
entity, the ‘‘Respondents’’ or
‘‘Changwon/Dongbang’’) for the period
2 In the Amended Final Determination Pursuant
To Court Decision, the Department reclassified
Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘Changwon’’)
U.S. sales as constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) sales
and recalculated the dumping margin for the
collapsed entity which included Changwon. As a
result of the recalculation, the ‘‘all others’’ rate also
changed. See Amended Final Determination
Pursuant To Court Decision, 66 FR at 41550.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59739
from September 1, 2004, through August
31, 2005. See the ‘‘Collapsing of
Respondents’’ section of this notice
below.
In October 2005, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the
Respondents. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 61601
(October 25, 2005). Also in October, the
Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to the Respondents, and
in December 2005, the Respondents
responded to this questionnaire.
Thereafter, the Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to the
Respondents - to which the Department
received timely responses- and the
Domestic Interested Parties submitted
comments regarding the Respondents’
questionnaire and supplemental
questionnaire responses.
In May 2006, the Department
extended the deadline for issuing the
preliminary results in this
administrative review until October 2,
2006. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 30658
(May 30, 2006).
The Department is conducting this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’).
Collapsing of Respondents
In the less–than-fair value (‘‘LTFV’’)
investigation in this proceeding, the
Department determined that Pohang
Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘POSCO’’), and
its subsidiary, Changwon, were
affiliated with Dongbang through a close
supplier relationship and that all three
companies should be treated as one
entity (collapsed). See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
Korea, 63 FR 40404, 40408 (July 29,
1998) (‘‘Final Determination’’)
(Comment 2). The Department found a
close supplier relationship between
POSCO/Changwon and Dongbang based
on the fact that Dongbang, whose
operations were almost exclusively
dependent upon finishing unfinished
SSWR (also known as black coil), was
not able to obtain suitable black coil
from sources other than POSCO/
Changwon. See Memorandum from the
Team to Holly Kuga regarding:
‘‘Whether Pohang Iron and Steel Co.,
Ltd. (POSCO), and its subsidiary
Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd.
(Changwon), are affiliated with
Dongbang Special Steel Co., Ltd.
(Dongbang). Whether to collapse
Dongbang with the already collapsed
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
59740
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Notices
pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
entity POSCO/Changwon for
antidumping analysis purposes,’’ dated
July 20, 1998 (LTFV affiliation
memorandum) at page 8 (which the
Department has placed on the record of
this administrative review). The
Department collapsed these companies
because their interdependent operations
resulted in a significant potential for the
manipulation of price and production
and the nature of their facilities allowed
them to shift the production of SSWR
among one another. See id. Specifically,
the Department found a significant
potential for manipulation of price and
production based on the importance of
the black coil trade between the
companies (Dongbang’s reliance upon
POSCO/Changwon for black coil as well
as its position as a significant consumer
of POSCO/Changwon’s black coil),
POSCO/Changwon’s leverage over
SSWR production due to the fact that it
supplied a major input used in
production, and the fact that the
companies had facilities for producing
subject merchandise.
Consistent with the record from the
LTFV investigation, we find that the
instant record indicates that Dongbang
has not obtained suitable black coil from
alternative sources but continues to
exclusively rely upon POSCO/
Changwon for this input. See
Dongbang’s December 1, 2005,
questionnaire response at 14.
Additionally, POSCO/Changwon and
Dongbang are still able to shift the
production of SSWR among one another
and there continues to be a significant
potential for the manipulation of price
and production because these
companies remain intertwined by virtue
of the significant transactions between
them, including sales of both SSWR and
black coil for the production of SSWR.
See Dongbang’s December 1, 2005,
questionnaire response at 3 and 14.
Finally, Dongbang’s business operations
remain considerably dependent upon
the production of subject merchandise.
See Dongbang’s May 12, 2006, Sales
Reconciliation at Attachment 1. Given
these facts, we continue to find that
POSCO and Changwon are affiliated
with Dongbang through a close supplier
relationship and the three companies
should continue to be treated as a single
entity for purposes of the Department’s
dumping analysis. See LTFV affiliation
memorandum.
Period of Review
The POR is September 1, 2004,
through August 31, 2005.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the
products covered are those SSWR that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Oct 10, 2006
Jkt 211001
are hot–rolled or hot–rolled annealed
and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds,
squares, octagons, hexagons or other
shapes, in coils, that may also be coated
with a lubricant containing copper, lime
or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or
less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more
of chromium, with or without other
elements. These products are
manufactured only by hot–rolling or
hot–rolling annealing, and/or pickling
and/or descaling, are normally sold in
coiled form, and are of solid crosssection. The majority of SSWR sold in
the United States is round in crosssectional shape, annealed and pickled,
and later cold–finished into stainless
steel wire or small–diameter bar. The
most common size for such products is
5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in
diameter, which represents the smallest
size that normally is produced on a
rolling mill and is the size that most
wire–drawing machines are set up to
draw. The range of SSWR sizes
normally sold in the United States is
between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in
diameter.
Two stainless steel grades are
excluded from the scope of the order.
SF20T and K–M35FL are excluded. The
chemical makeup for the excluded
grades is as follows:
SF20T
Carbon ......................................
Manganese ...............................
Phosphorous .............................
Sulfur ........................................
Silicon .......................................
Chromium .................................
Molybdenum .............................
Lead–added ..............................
Tellurium–added .......................
0.05 max
2.00 max
0.05 max
0.15 max
1.00 max
19.00/21.00
1.50/2.50
(0.10/0.30)
(0.03 min)
K–M35FL
Carbon ......................................
Silicon .......................................
Manganese ...............................
Phosphorous .............................
Sulfur ........................................
Nickel ........................................
Chromium .................................
Lead ..........................................
Aluminum ..................................
0.015 max
0.70/1.00
0.40 max
0.04 max
0.03 max
0.30 max
12.50/14.00
0.10/0.30
0.20/0.35
The products subject to the order are
currently classifiable under subheadings
7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015,
7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Affiliation
During this administrative review, the
Respondents reported U.S. sales to
trading companies which they classified
as unaffiliated parties in their
questionnaire responses. The Domestic
Interested Parties contend that these
trading companies are affiliated with the
Respondents through a principal–agent
relationship, while the Respondents
maintain that they have no agency
relationship with these customers. In
reviewing the record evidence, we find
that the Respondents did not have
principal–agent relationships with their
respective trading company customers
and, therefore, we have preliminarily
determined that the Respondents are not
affiliated with these customers through
a principal–agent relationship pursuant
to section 771(33)(G) of the Act. See the
proprietary memorandum to Thomas F.
Futtner from Malcolm Burke, Agency
Analysis of Respondents’ Reseller
Customers, dated concurrently with this
notice.
Comparison Methodology
To determine whether the
Respondents sold SSWR in the United
States at prices less than NV, the
Department compared the export price
(‘‘EP’’) and CEP of individual U.S. sales
to the weighted–average NV of sales of
the foreign like product made in the
ordinary course of trade in a month
contemporaneous with the month in
which the U.S. sale was made. See
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
Section 771(16) of the Act defines
foreign like product as merchandise that
is identical or similar to subject
merchandise and produced by the same
person and in the same country as the
subject merchandise. Thus, we
considered all products covered by the
scope of the order, that were produced
by the same person and in the same
country as the subject merchandise, and
sold by Respondents in the home
market during the POR, to be foreign
like products for the purpose of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to SSWR sold in the
United States.
The Department compared U.S. sales
to sales made in the home market
within the contemporaneous window
period, which extends from three
months prior to the month in which the
U.S. sale was made until two months
after the month in which the U.S. sale
was made. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise made in the
home market in the ordinary course of
trade, the Department compared U.S.
sales to sales of the most similar foreign
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Notices
pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
like product made in the ordinary
course of trade. In making product
comparisons, the Department selected
identical and most similar foreign like
products based on the physical
characteristics reported by the
Respondents in the following order of
importance: grade, diameter, further
processing, and coating.
shipment to the first unaffiliated
customer, we relied upon the date of
shipment as the date of sale. See e.g.,
Certain Cold–Rolled and Corrosion–
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
From Korea: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 64 FR 12927, 12935 (March 16,
1999).
Date of Sale
Respondents used invoice date as the
date of sale for their EP, CEP, and home
market sales. In comments filed with the
Department, the Domestic Interested
Parties contested the use of the invoice
date as the date of sale and argued for
use of the order input date or revised
purchase order date. Normally, the
Department considers the respondent’s
invoice date as recorded in its business
records to be the date of sale unless a
date other than the invoice date better
reflects the date on which the company
establishes the material terms of sale.
See 19 CFR § 351.401(i). In this case,
after additional inquiry, the Department
determined that the use of a date other
than the invoice date was not
appropriate. Specifically, Changwon
and Dongbang reported that the
information obtained on the order input
date was informal in nature, non–
binding on the customer, and was
obtained only to schedule production.
Further, Changwon and Dongbang
reported that the final price and
quantity of a particular order were
established when a particular shipment
was invoiced, with that invoice being
the first written documentation of those
confirmed sales terms. Moreover,
Changwon and Dongbang presented
evidence that the material terms of sale
were subject to change between the
order date and the invoice date and, in
fact, did change for numerous sales. See
Dongbang’s June 20, 2006, supplemental
questionnaire response at 3 and
Appendix SB–3, Dongbang’s April 24,
2006, supplemental questionnaire
response at 3 and Appendix SC–2,
Changwon’s April 6, 2006,
supplemental questionnaire response at
5 and Appendix SA–2, and Changwon’s
January 23, 2006, supplemental
questionnaire response at 11–13. Thus,
when compared to invoice date, the
record does not demonstrate that the
order input date or revised purchase
order date better reflects the date on
which the material terms of sale were
established. Therefore, consistent with
prior segments of this proceeding, we
have preliminarily used invoice date as
the date of sale for both the U.S. and
home markets. However, consistent
with the Department’s practice, where
the invoice was issued after the date of
Export Price and Constructed Export
Price
The Department based the price of the
Respondents’ U.S. sales of subject
merchandise on EP or CEP, as
appropriate. Specifically, when
Changwon or Dongbang sold subject
merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States prior to
importation, and CEP was not otherwise
warranted based on the facts of the
record, we based the price of the sale on
EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act. Alternatively, when Changwon
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States through
a U.S. affiliate, Pohang Steel America
Corporation (‘‘POSAM’’), after
importation, we based the price of the
sale on CEP, in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act.
In accordance with sections 772(a)
and (c) of the Act, we calculated EP
using the prices the Respondents
charged for packed subject merchandise.
From this price we deducted, where
applicable, the following expenses:
foreign inland freight charges (from the
Respondents’ plants to the port of
exportation) - including wharfage
charges, terminal handling charges,
container taxes, document and
miscellaneous fees, international freight,
and marine insurance, consistent with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Additionally, we added to the starting
price an amount for duty drawback
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the
Act.
In accordance with sections
772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) and (3) of the
Act, we calculated CEP using the prices
charged for packed subject merchandise
sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States, from which we
deducted the following expenses:
foreign inland freight (from the
Respondents’ plants to the port of
exportation), brokerage and handling,
international ocean freight, marine
insurance, container handling fee,
harbor fee, other U.S. transportation,
U.S. duty, direct and indirect selling
expenses (to the extent these expenses
are associated with economic activity in
the United States), and CEP profit (profit
allocated to expenses deducted under
sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act
in accordance with sections 772(d)(3)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Oct 10, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59741
and 772(f) of the Act). We computed
profit by deducting from total revenue
realized on sales in both the U.S. and
home markets, all expenses associated
with those sales. We then allocated
profit to expenses incurred with respect
to U.S. economic activity, based on the
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total
expenses for both the U.S. and home
markets. Lastly, we added to the starting
price an amount for duty drawback
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the
Act.
Normal Value
After testing home market viability,
whether home market sales to affiliates
were at arm’s–length prices, and
whether home market sales were at
below–cost prices, we calculated NV for
Respondents as noted in the ‘‘Price–toPrice Comparisons’’ section of this
notice.
A. Home Market Viability
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to
determine whether there was 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 or
equal to five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales), we compared the
aggregate volume of the Respondents’
home market sales of the foreign like
product to the aggregate volume of their
U.S. sales of subject merchandise.
Because the aggregate volume of the
Respondents’ home market sales of
foreign like product is more than five
percent of the aggregate volume of their
U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we
based NV on sales of the foreign like
product in the Respondents’ home
market.
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 exporter or
producer, i.e., sales at arm’s–length. See
19 CFR § 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated
customers for consumption in the home
market that are determined not to be at
arm’s–length are excluded from our
analysis. In this proceeding the
Respondents reported sales of the
foreign like product to an affiliated
customer. To test whether these sales
were made at arm’s–length prices, the
Department compared the prices of sales
of comparable merchandise to affiliated
and unaffiliated customers, net of all
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
59742
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Notices
movement charges, direct selling
expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19
CFR § 351.403(c), and in accordance
with the Department’s practice, when
the prices charged to an affiliated party
were, on average, between 98 and 102
percent of the prices charged to
unaffiliated parties for merchandise
comparable to that sold to the affiliated
party, we determined that the sales to
the affiliated party were at arm’s–length.
See Antidumping Proceedings:
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary
Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187
(November 15, 2002). Where the
Respondents’ sales to affiliated home
market customers did not pass the arm’s
length test we excluded those sales from
our analysis.
C. Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’) Analysis
In the most recent administrative
review in this proceeding, the
Department determined that the
Respondents sold foreign like product at
prices below the cost of producing the
product and excluded such sales from
the calculation of NV. See Stainless
Steel Wire Rod from Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 19153
(April 12, 2004). As a result, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act, the Department has
determined that there are reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that
during the instant POR, the
Respondents sold foreign like product at
prices below the cost of producing the
product. Thus, the Department initiated
a sales below cost inquiry with respect
to the Respondents.
pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, for each foreign like product
sold by the Respondents during the
POR, we calculated a weighted–average
COP based on the sum of the
Respondents’ materials and fabrication
costs and general and administrative
(‘‘G&A’’) expenses, including interest
expenses. We adjusted the cost data
reported by Respondents by setting
Changwon’s negative interest expense to
zero. For further information see the
Calculation Memorandum dated
concurrently with this notice, on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room B–099
of the Main Commerce Building (CRU).
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
In order to determine whether sales
were made at prices below the COP, on
a product–specific basis we compared
the Respondents’ weighted–average
COP to the prices of its home market
sales of foreign like product, as required
under section 773(b) of the Act. In
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Oct 10, 2006
Jkt 211001
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A)
and (B) of the Act, in determining
whether to disregard home market sales
made at prices less than the COP, we
examined whether such sales were
made: (1) in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time; and
(2) at prices which permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. We compared the COP
to home market sales prices, less any
applicable movement charges, direct
and indirect selling, or packing
expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the
Act, where less than 20 percent of the
Respondents’ sales of a given product
were made at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below–cost
sales of that product because the below–
cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more
of the Respondents’ sales of a given
product were made at prices less than
the COP during the POR, we determined
such sales to have been made in
‘‘substantial quantities’’ for an extended
period of time (i.e., one year) pursuant
to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act. In such cases, because we used
POR average costs we also determined,
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)
of the Act, that these sales were not
made at prices which would permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. Based on the results of
our cost test, we disregarded the
Respondents’ below–cost sales.
Price–to-Price Comparisons
Where it was appropriate to base NV
on prices, we used the prices at which
the foreign like product was first sold by
the Respondents for consumption in the
home market, in the usual commercial
quantities, in the ordinary course of
trade, and, to the extent possible, at the
same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the
comparison U.S. sale.
We calculated NV using prices for
packed foreign like product delivered to
unaffiliated purchasers or, were
appropriate, affiliated purchasers in the
home market. In accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A), (B), and (C) of the
Act, where appropriate, we deducted
from the starting price warranty
expenses, movement expenses, home
market packing costs, credit expenses
and other direct selling expenses, and
added U.S. packing costs and, for NVs
compared to EPs, credit expenses and
other direct selling expenses.
Additionally, where appropriate, we
made price adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise. See
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
§ 351.410(e).
Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determined NV based on
sales in the home market at the same
LOT as the EP or CEP sales. The NV
LOT is based on the starting price of the
sales in the home market or, when NV
is based on constructed value, the
starting price of the sales from which we
derive selling general and
administrative expenses and profit. For
EP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the
starting price of the sales to the U.S.
market. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is
based on the starting price of the sales
to the U.S. market, as adjusted under
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243
F.3d, 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than the EP and CEP
sales, the Department examines 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 than the EP and CEP
sales, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested by a
pattern of consistent price differences
between comparison–market sales at the
NV LOT and comparison–market sales
at the LOT of the export transaction, the
Department makes a LOT adjustment
under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a
more advanced stage of distribution
than the CEP LOT and there is no basis
for determining whether the difference
between the NV and CEP LOTs affects
price comparability, the Department
adjusts NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon
Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR
61731 (November 19, 1997).
In determining whether the
Respondents made sales at separate
LOTs, we obtained information from the
Respondents regarding the marketing
stages for the reported U.S. and home
market sales, including a description of
the selling activities performed by
Respondents for each channel of
distribution. Generally, if the reported
LOTs are the same, the functions and
activities of the seller at each level
should be similar. Conversely, if a party
reports that LOTs are different for
different groups of sales, the selling
functions and activities of the seller for
each group should be dissimilar.
In the home market, Changwon and
Dongbang each sold foreign like product
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Notices
pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
during the POR directly to end users
through one channel of distribution. We
compared the types of selling activities
performed in each channel of
distribution, as well as the level of
intensity at which each activity was
performed and found no significant
differences between the two channels
(we cannot discuss the comparison here
without referencing business
proprietary information; therefore, for a
detailed analysis, see the proprietary
memorandum to Thomas F. Futtner
from the Team regarding level of trade,
dated concurrently herewith (‘‘Level of
Trade Memorandum’’). Thus, we
determined that there is one home
market LOT.
In the U.S. market, Changwon sold
subject merchandise during the POR to
trading companies and end users
through two channels of distribution,
namely through unaffiliated Korean
trading companies and an affiliated
company located in the United States.
Dongbang sold subject merchandise
during the POR to trading companies
and end users through only one channel
of distribution, unaffiliated Korean
trading companies. We compared the
types of selling activities performed in
each channel of distribution, as well as
the level of intensity at which each
activity was performed and found no
significant differences between the U.S.
channels. See the Level of Trade
Memorandum. Thus, we determined
that there is one U.S. market LOT.
We then compared the home market
LOT to the U.S. market LOT. We did not
find substantial differences in the
selling activities performed in the two
LOTs. See the Level of Trade
Memorandum for further analysis.
Therefore, we determined that the home
and U.S. LOTs are at the same level. See
19 CFR § 351.412(c)(2) (noting that
‘‘substantial differences in selling
activities are a necessary ... condition
for determining that there is a difference
in the stage of marketing’’). Thus,
neither a LOT adjustment to NV,
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the
Act, nor a CEP offset pursuant to
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, is warranted. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27372
(May 19, 1997) (‘‘{t}he Department will
not make a CEP offset where ... the
Department bases normal value on
home market sales at the same LOT as
the CEP’’).
Currency Conversion
Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the
Act, we converted amounts expressed in
foreign currencies into U.S. dollar
amounts based on the exchange rates in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Oct 10, 2006
Jkt 211001
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as
reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily determine that the
following weighted- average dumping
margin exists for the period September
1, 2004, through August 31, 2005.
Manufacturer/Exporter
POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang ...
Margin
(percent)
9.77 %
Public Comment
Within 10 days of publicly
announcing the preliminary results of
this review, we will disclose to
interested parties any calculations
performed in connection with the
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
§ 351.224(b). Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. See 19 CFR § 351.310(c). If
requested, a hearing will be held 44
days after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register, or the
first workday thereafter. Interested
parties are invited to comment on the
preliminary results of this review. The
Department will consider case briefs
filed by interested parties within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register. Also,
interested parties may file rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in the
case briefs. The Department will
consider rebuttal briefs filed not later
than five days after the time limit for
filing case briefs. Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
each argument: (1) A statement of the
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument and (3) a table of authorities
cited. Further, we request that parties
submitting written comments provide
the Department with a diskette
containing an electronic copy of the
public version of such comments.
Unless the deadline for issuing the final
results of review is extended, the
Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of issues raised
in the written comments, within 120
days of publication of the preliminary
results in the Federal Register.
Assessment Rates
In accordance with 19 CFR
§ 351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary
results of review we calculated
importer/customer–specific assessment
rates. Where the importer/customer–
specific assessment rate is above de
minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent ad valorem or
greater), we will instruct CBP to assess
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59743
the importer/customer–specific rate
uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries
of subject merchandise during the POR
that were entered by the importer or
sold to the customer. Within 15 days of
publication of the final results of
review, the Department will issue
instructions to CBP directing it to assess
the final assessment rates (if above de
minimis) uniformly on all entries of
subject merchandise made by the
relevant importer or sold to the relevant
customer during the POR.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This
clarification applies to POR entries of
subject merchandise produced by
companies examined in this review (i.e.,
companies for which a dumping margin
was calculated) where the companies
did not know that their merchandise
was destined for 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. 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 cash deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided
by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the
cash deposit rate for the companies
examined in the instant review will be
the rate established in the final results
of this review (except that if the rate for
a particular company is de minimis, i.e.,
less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit
will be required for that company); (2)
for previously investigated or reviewed
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 LTFV investigation, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the
most recent period for the manufacturer
of the subject merchandise; and (4) the
cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of
5.77 percent, which is the ‘‘all others’’
rate established in the LTFV
investigation, as adjusted in a
subsequent remand redetermination.
See Amended Final Determination and
Amended Final Determination Pursuant
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
59744
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Notices
to Court Decision. These cash deposit
rates, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative
review.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
§ 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping 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 Act.
Dated: October 2, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–16820 Filed 10–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
FOR THE CONFERENCE CALL-IN NUMBER
AND FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The
pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
President’s Export Council Executive
Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC
20230 (Phone: 202–482–1124), or visit
the PEC Web site, https://
www.export.gov/pec.
Dated: October 6, 2006.
J. Marc Chittum,
Staff Director and Executive Secretary,
President’s Export Council.
[FR Doc. 06–8634 Filed 10–6–06; 2:04 pm]
Jkt 211001
Notice of Public Meeting.
SUMMARY: The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
invites interested parties to attend a
meeting on November 1, 2006, at 9:30
a.m. at the NIST main campus in
Gaithersburg, MD to discuss
collaboration, between NIST and
industry, in the Autonomous Guided
Vehicle (AGV) Consortium. The
objective of this meeting will be to
briefly explain the proposed consortium
tasks and to solicit interested AGV
companies to join the consortium. The
consortium is open to members joining
prior to November 17, 2006. Beyond this
date, joining the collaboration will not
be allowed. The consortium will
research advanced 3D imaging
techniques for AGVs over a three phase
effort.
Roger Bostelman, Intelligent Systems
Division, National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau
Drive MS 8230, Gaithersburg, MD
20899. Telephone (301) 975–3426; email: roger.bostelman@nist.gov.
November 1, 2006.
16:53 Oct 10, 2006
ACTION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
2 p.m. (EST).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
The meeting will take place
at the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau
Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Shops
Building 304 Conference Room.
SUMMARY: The President’s Export
Council will hold a meeting via
teleconference to deliberate a draft
recommendation to the President
regarding Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation.
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Commerce.
AGENCY:
ADDRESSES:
Notice of an open meeting via
teleconference.
ACTION:
TIME:
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
The meeting will take place on
Wednesday, November 1, 2006, at 9:30
a.m. Interested parties who wish to
attend and participate in the meeting
must inform NIST at the contact
information shown below at least 48
hours prior to the meeting.
AGENCY:
DATE:
Announcement of a Meeting for the
Proposed Autonomous Guided Vehicle
Consortia
DATES:
The President’s Export Council:
Meeting of the President’s Export
Council; Sunshine Act
Dated: October 3, 2006.
James E. Hill,
Acting Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E6–16822 Filed 10–10–06; 8:45 am]
Any
program undertaken will be within the
scope and confines of The Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Pub.
L. 99–502, 15 U.S.C. 3710a), which
provides federal laboratories including
NIST, with the authority to enter into
cooperative research agreements with
qualified parties. Under this law, NIST
may contribute personnel, equipment,
and facilities but no funds to the
cooperative research program. This is
not a grant program.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) Proposes To Revise Codes and
Standards
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) proposes to revise
some of its safety codes and standards
and requests proposals from the public
to amend existing or begin the process
of developing new NFPA safety codes
and standards. The purpose of this
request is to increase public
participation in the system used by
NFPA to develop its codes and
standards. The publication of this notice
of request for proposals by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) on behalf of NFPA is being
undertaken as a public service; NIST
does not necessarily endorse, approve,
or recommend any of the standards
referenced in the notice.
The NFPA process provides ample
opportunity for public participation in
the development of its codes and
standards. All NFPA codes and
standards are revised and updated every
three to five years in Revision Cycles
that begin twice each year and that takes
approximately two years to complete.
Each Revision Cycle proceeds according
to a published schedule that includes
final dates for all major events in the
process. The process contains five basic
steps that are followed both for
developing new documents as well as
revising existing documents. These
steps are: Calling for Proposals;
Publishing the Proposals in the Report
on Proposals; Calling for Comments on
the Committee’s disposition of the
proposals and these Comments are
published in the Report on Comments;
having a Technical Report Session at the
NFPA Annual Meeting; and finally, the
Standards Council Consideration and
Issuance of documents.
Note: Under new rules effective Fall 2005,
anyone wishing to make Amending Motions
on the Technical Committee Reports (ROP
and ROC) must signal their intention by
submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a
Motion by the Deadline stated in the ROC.
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59739-59744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16820]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-580-829)
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by domestic interested parties,\1\
the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
wire rod (``SSWR'') from the Republic of Korea (``Korea''). This review
covers two producer/exporters of the subject merchandise that have been
collapsed for purposes of the Department's analysis, consistent with
the record of this review and prior determinations in this proceeding.
The period of review (``POR'') is September 1, 2004, through August 31,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The domestic interested parties are Carpenter Technology
Corporation; Dunkirk Specialty Steel, LLC, a subsidiary of Universal
Stainless & Alloy Products; and North American Stainless
(hereinafter, the ``Domestic Interested Parties'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has preliminarily determined that the companies
subject to this review made U.S. sales of SSWR at prices less than
normal value (``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. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results of review. We will issue the final results of
review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or Malcolm Burke, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
4081 and (202) 482-3584, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 15, 1998, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See Notice of
Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR
49331 (September 15, 1998) (``Amended Final Determination'') and
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea: Amendment of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision, 66 FR
41550 (August 8, 2001) (``Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court
Decision'').\2\ In September 2005, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR
52072 ( September 1, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the Amended Final Determination Pursuant To Court
Decision, the Department reclassified Changwon Specialty Steel Co.,
Ltd.'s (``Changwon'') U.S. sales as constructed export price
(``CEP'') sales and recalculated the dumping margin for the
collapsed entity which included Changwon. As a result of the
recalculation, the ``all others'' rate also changed. See Amended
Final Determination Pursuant To Court Decision, 66 FR at 41550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.
351.213(b)(1), the Domestic Interested Parties requested that the
Department conduct a review of Changwon and Dongbang Special Steel Co.,
Ltd. (``Dongbang''), and any of their affiliates (collectively, as a
collapsed entity, the ``Respondents'' or ``Changwon/Dongbang'') for the
period from September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. See the
``Collapsing of Respondents'' section of this notice below.
In October 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review
of the Respondents. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005). Also in
October, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to the
Respondents, and in December 2005, the Respondents responded to this
questionnaire. Thereafter, the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to the Respondents - to which the Department received
timely responses- and the Domestic Interested Parties submitted
comments regarding the Respondents' questionnaire and supplemental
questionnaire responses.
In May 2006, the Department extended the deadline for issuing the
preliminary results in this administrative review until October 2,
2006. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 30658 (May 30, 2006).
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
``Act'').
Collapsing of Respondents
In the less-than-fair value (``LTFV'') investigation in this
proceeding, the Department determined that Pohang Iron and Steel Co.,
Ltd. (``POSCO''), and its subsidiary, Changwon, were affiliated with
Dongbang through a close supplier relationship and that all three
companies should be treated as one entity (collapsed). See Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Stainless Steel
Wire Rod from Korea, 63 FR 40404, 40408 (July 29, 1998) (``Final
Determination'') (Comment 2). The Department found a close supplier
relationship between POSCO/Changwon and Dongbang based on the fact that
Dongbang, whose operations were almost exclusively dependent upon
finishing unfinished SSWR (also known as black coil), was not able to
obtain suitable black coil from sources other than POSCO/Changwon. See
Memorandum from the Team to Holly Kuga regarding: ``Whether Pohang Iron
and Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO), and its subsidiary Changwon Specialty
Steel Co., Ltd. (Changwon), are affiliated with Dongbang Special Steel
Co., Ltd. (Dongbang). Whether to collapse Dongbang with the already
collapsed
[[Page 59740]]
entity POSCO/Changwon for antidumping analysis purposes,'' dated July
20, 1998 (LTFV affiliation memorandum) at page 8 (which the Department
has placed on the record of this administrative review). The Department
collapsed these companies because their interdependent operations
resulted in a significant potential for the manipulation of price and
production and the nature of their facilities allowed them to shift the
production of SSWR among one another. See id. Specifically, the
Department found a significant potential for manipulation of price and
production based on the importance of the black coil trade between the
companies (Dongbang's reliance upon POSCO/Changwon for black coil as
well as its position as a significant consumer of POSCO/Changwon's
black coil), POSCO/Changwon's leverage over SSWR production due to the
fact that it supplied a major input used in production, and the fact
that the companies had facilities for producing subject merchandise.
Consistent with the record from the LTFV investigation, we find
that the instant record indicates that Dongbang has not obtained
suitable black coil from alternative sources but continues to
exclusively rely upon POSCO/Changwon for this input. See Dongbang's
December 1, 2005, questionnaire response at 14. Additionally, POSCO/
Changwon and Dongbang are still able to shift the production of SSWR
among one another and there continues to be a significant potential for
the manipulation of price and production because these companies remain
intertwined by virtue of the significant transactions between them,
including sales of both SSWR and black coil for the production of SSWR.
See Dongbang's December 1, 2005, questionnaire response at 3 and 14.
Finally, Dongbang's business operations remain considerably dependent
upon the production of subject merchandise. See Dongbang's May 12,
2006, Sales Reconciliation at Attachment 1. Given these facts, we
continue to find that POSCO and Changwon are affiliated with Dongbang
through a close supplier relationship and the three companies should
continue to be treated as a single entity for purposes of the
Department's dumping analysis. See LTFV affiliation memorandum.
Period of Review
The POR is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the products covered are those SSWR
that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or
descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils,
that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or
oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or
without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-
rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are
normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The
majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional
shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless
steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such
products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which
represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling
mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to
draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is
between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter.
Two stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the
order. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The chemical makeup for the
excluded grades is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF20T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon..................................................... 0.05 max
Manganese.................................................. 2.00 max
Phosphorous................................................ 0.05 max
Sulfur..................................................... 0.15 max
Silicon.................................................... 1.00 max
Chromium................................................... 19.00/21.00
Molybdenum................................................. 1.50/2.50
Lead-added................................................. (0.10/0.30)
Tellurium-added............................................ (0.03 min)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-M35FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon..................................................... 0.015 max
Silicon.................................................... 0.70/1.00
Manganese.................................................. 0.40 max
Phosphorous................................................ 0.04 max
Sulfur..................................................... 0.03 max
Nickel..................................................... 0.30 max
Chromium................................................... 12.50/14.00
Lead....................................................... 0.10/0.30
Aluminum................................................... 0.20/0.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The products subject to the order are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of the order is dispositive.
Affiliation
During this administrative review, the Respondents reported U.S.
sales to trading companies which they classified as unaffiliated
parties in their questionnaire responses. The Domestic Interested
Parties contend that these trading companies are affiliated with the
Respondents through a principal-agent relationship, while the
Respondents maintain that they have no agency relationship with these
customers. In reviewing the record evidence, we find that the
Respondents did not have principal-agent relationships with their
respective trading company customers and, therefore, we have
preliminarily determined that the Respondents are not affiliated with
these customers through a principal-agent relationship pursuant to
section 771(33)(G) of the Act. See the proprietary memorandum to Thomas
F. Futtner from Malcolm Burke, Agency Analysis of Respondents' Reseller
Customers, dated concurrently with this notice.
Comparison Methodology
To determine whether the Respondents sold SSWR in the United States
at prices less than NV, the Department compared the export price
(``EP'') and CEP of individual U.S. sales to the weighted-average NV of
sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade
in a month contemporaneous with the month in which the U.S. sale was
made. See section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign
like product as merchandise that is identical or similar to subject
merchandise and produced by the same person and in the same country as
the subject merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by
the scope of the order, that were produced by the same person and in
the same country as the subject merchandise, and sold by Respondents in
the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for the
purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSWR sold in
the United States.
The Department compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market
within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three
months prior to the month in which the U.S. sale was made until two
months after the month in which the U.S. sale was made. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise made in the home market in the
ordinary course of trade, the Department compared U.S. sales to sales
of the most similar foreign
[[Page 59741]]
like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making product
comparisons, the Department selected identical and most similar foreign
like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the
Respondents in the following order of importance: grade, diameter,
further processing, and coating.
Date of Sale
Respondents used invoice date as the date of sale for their EP,
CEP, and home market sales. In comments filed with the Department, the
Domestic Interested Parties contested the use of the invoice date as
the date of sale and argued for use of the order input date or revised
purchase order date. Normally, the Department considers the
respondent's invoice date as recorded in its business records to be the
date of sale unless a date other than the invoice date better reflects
the date on which the company establishes the material terms of sale.
See 19 CFR Sec. 351.401(i). In this case, after additional inquiry,
the Department determined that the use of a date other than the invoice
date was not appropriate. Specifically, Changwon and Dongbang reported
that the information obtained on the order input date was informal in
nature, non-binding on the customer, and was obtained only to schedule
production. Further, Changwon and Dongbang reported that the final
price and quantity of a particular order were established when a
particular shipment was invoiced, with that invoice being the first
written documentation of those confirmed sales terms. Moreover,
Changwon and Dongbang presented evidence that the material terms of
sale were subject to change between the order date and the invoice date
and, in fact, did change for numerous sales. See Dongbang's June 20,
2006, supplemental questionnaire response at 3 and Appendix SB-3,
Dongbang's April 24, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response at 3 and
Appendix SC-2, Changwon's April 6, 2006, supplemental questionnaire
response at 5 and Appendix SA-2, and Changwon's January 23, 2006,
supplemental questionnaire response at 11-13. Thus, when compared to
invoice date, the record does not demonstrate that the order input date
or revised purchase order date better reflects the date on which the
material terms of sale were established. Therefore, consistent with
prior segments of this proceeding, we have preliminarily used invoice
date as the date of sale for both the U.S. and home markets. However,
consistent with the Department's practice, where the invoice was issued
after the date of shipment to the first unaffiliated customer, we
relied upon the date of shipment as the date of sale. See e.g., Certain
Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR
12927, 12935 (March 16, 1999).
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
The Department based the price of the Respondents' U.S. sales of
subject merchandise on EP or CEP, as appropriate. Specifically, when
Changwon or Dongbang sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of the record, we based the
price of the sale on EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
Alternatively, when Changwon sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States through a U.S. affiliate, Pohang Steel
America Corporation (``POSAM''), after importation, we based the price
of the sale on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
In accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated EP using the prices the Respondents charged for packed
subject merchandise. From this price we deducted, where applicable, the
following expenses: foreign inland freight charges (from the
Respondents' plants to the port of exportation) - including wharfage
charges, terminal handling charges, container taxes, document and
miscellaneous fees, international freight, and marine insurance,
consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added
to the starting price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
In accordance with sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) and (3) of
the Act, we calculated CEP using the prices charged for packed subject
merchandise sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States, from which we deducted the following expenses: foreign inland
freight (from the Respondents' plants to the port of exportation),
brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, marine insurance,
container handling fee, harbor fee, other U.S. transportation, U.S.
duty, direct and indirect selling expenses (to the extent these
expenses are associated with economic activity in the United States),
and CEP profit (profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections
772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act in accordance with sections 772(d)(3)
and 772(f) of the Act). We computed profit by deducting from total
revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, all
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and
home markets. Lastly, we added to the starting price an amount for duty
drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Normal Value
After testing home market viability, whether home market sales to
affiliates were at arm's-length prices, and whether home market sales
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV for Respondents as noted in
the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section of this notice.
A. Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to
determine whether there was 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 or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared the aggregate volume of the Respondents' home
market sales of the foreign like product to the aggregate volume of
their U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Because the aggregate volume
of the Respondents' home market sales of foreign like product is more
than five percent of the aggregate volume of their U.S. sales of
subject merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product
in the Respondents' home market.
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 exporter or producer, i.e., sales at arm's-length.
See 19 CFR Sec. 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers for
consumption in the home market that are determined not to be at arm's-
length are excluded from our analysis. In this proceeding the
Respondents reported sales of the foreign like product to an affiliated
customer. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices,
the Department compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise
to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all
[[Page 59742]]
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19
CFR Sec. 351.403(c), and in accordance with the Department's practice,
when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average,
between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated
parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated
party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at
arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002).
Where the Respondents' sales to affiliated home market customers did
not pass the arm's length test we excluded those sales from our
analysis.
C. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis
In the most recent administrative review in this proceeding, the
Department determined that the Respondents sold foreign like product at
prices below the cost of producing the product and excluded such sales
from the calculation of NV. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 19153
(April 12, 2004). As a result, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has determined that there
are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that during the instant
POR, the Respondents sold foreign like product at prices below the cost
of producing the product. Thus, the Department initiated a sales below
cost inquiry with respect to the Respondents.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each foreign
like product sold by the Respondents during the POR, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the Respondents' materials and
fabrication costs and general and administrative (``G&A'') expenses,
including interest expenses. We adjusted the cost data reported by
Respondents by setting Changwon's negative interest expense to zero.
For further information see the Calculation Memorandum dated
concurrently with this notice, on file in the Central Records Unit,
Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building (CRU).
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the
COP, on a product-specific basis we compared the Respondents' weighted-
average COP to the prices of its home market sales of foreign like
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in determining whether
to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we
examined whether such sales were made: (1) in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time; and (2) at prices which permitted
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
compared the COP to home market sales prices, less any applicable
movement charges, direct and indirect selling, or packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of the Respondents' sales of a given product were made at
prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of
that product because the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the
Respondents' sales of a given product were made at prices less than the
COP during the POR, we determined such sales to have been made in
``substantial quantities'' for an extended period of time (i.e., one
year) pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. In such
cases, because we used POR average costs we also determined, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that these sales were
not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time. Based on the results of our cost test, we
disregarded the Respondents' below-cost sales.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
Where it was appropriate to base NV on prices, we used the prices
at which the foreign like product was first sold by the Respondents for
consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities, in
the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same
level of trade (``LOT'') as the comparison U.S. sale.
We calculated NV using prices for packed foreign like product
delivered to unaffiliated purchasers or, were appropriate, affiliated
purchasers in the home market. In accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, where appropriate, we deducted
from the starting price warranty expenses, movement expenses, home
market packing costs, credit expenses and other direct selling
expenses, and added U.S. packing costs and, for NVs compared to EPs,
credit expenses and other direct selling expenses. Additionally, where
appropriate, we made price adjustments for physical differences in the
merchandise. See 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR Sec.
351.410(e).
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the home market at the
same LOT as the EP or CEP sales. The NV LOT is based on the starting
price of the sales in the home market or, when NV is based on
constructed value, the starting price of the sales from which we derive
selling general and administrative expenses and profit. For EP sales,
the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S.
market. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of
the sales to the U.S. market, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the
Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d, 1301, 1315
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP
and CEP sales, the Department examines 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 than the EP and CEP sales, and the difference affects
price comparability, as manifested by a pattern of consistent price
differences between comparison-market sales at the NV LOT and
comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the
Department makes a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the
Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of
distribution than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining
whether the difference between the NV and CEP LOTs affects price
comparability, the Department adjusts NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South
Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
In determining whether the Respondents made sales at separate LOTs,
we obtained information from the Respondents regarding the marketing
stages for the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a
description of the selling activities performed by Respondents for each
channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same,
the functions and activities of the seller at each level should be
similar. Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs are different for
different groups of sales, the selling functions and activities of the
seller for each group should be dissimilar.
In the home market, Changwon and Dongbang each sold foreign like
product
[[Page 59743]]
during the POR directly to end users through one channel of
distribution. We compared the types of selling activities performed in
each channel of distribution, as well as the level of intensity at
which each activity was performed and found no significant differences
between the two channels (we cannot discuss the comparison here without
referencing business proprietary information; therefore, for a detailed
analysis, see the proprietary memorandum to Thomas F. Futtner from the
Team regarding level of trade, dated concurrently herewith (``Level of
Trade Memorandum''). Thus, we determined that there is one home market
LOT.
In the U.S. market, Changwon sold subject merchandise during the
POR to trading companies and end users through two channels of
distribution, namely through unaffiliated Korean trading companies and
an affiliated company located in the United States. Dongbang sold
subject merchandise during the POR to trading companies and end users
through only one channel of distribution, unaffiliated Korean trading
companies. We compared the types of selling activities performed in
each channel of distribution, as well as the level of intensity at
which each activity was performed and found no significant differences
between the U.S. channels. See the Level of Trade Memorandum. Thus, we
determined that there is one U.S. market LOT.
We then compared the home market LOT to the U.S. market LOT. We did
not find substantial differences in the selling activities performed in
the two LOTs. See the Level of Trade Memorandum for further analysis.
Therefore, we determined that the home and U.S. LOTs are at the same
level. See 19 CFR Sec. 351.412(c)(2) (noting that ``substantial
differences in selling activities are a necessary ... condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stage of marketing'').
Thus, neither a LOT adjustment to NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A)
of the Act, nor a CEP offset pursuant to 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, is
warranted. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27372 (May 19, 1997) (``{t{time} he Department will not
make a CEP offset where ... the Department bases normal value on home
market sales at the same LOT as the CEP'').
Currency Conversion
Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts
expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as reported by
the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted- average dumping margin exists for the period
September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang..................................... 9.77
[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of
this review, we will disclose to interested parties any calculations
performed in connection with the preliminary results. See 19 CFR Sec.
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR
Sec. 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after
the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, or the
first workday thereafter. Interested parties are invited to comment on
the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider
case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Also, interested
parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later
than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who
submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a
table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an
electronic copy of the public version of such comments. Unless the
deadline for issuing the final results of review is extended, the
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in the written
comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in
the Federal Register.
Assessment Rates
In accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary
results of review we calculated importer/customer-specific assessment
rates. Where the importer/customer-specific assessment rate is above de
minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent ad valorem or greater), we will instruct
CBP to assess the importer/customer-specific rate uniformly, as
appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that
were entered by the importer or sold to the customer. Within 15 days of
publication of the final results of review, the Department will issue
instructions to CBP directing it to assess the final assessment rates
(if above de minimis) uniformly on all entries of subject merchandise
made by the relevant importer or sold to the relevant customer during
the POR.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to POR entries of
subject merchandise produced by companies examined in this review
(i.e., companies for which a dumping margin was calculated) where the
companies did not know that their merchandise was destined for 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. 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 cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies
examined in the instant review will be the rate established in the
final results of this review (except that if the rate for a particular
company is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit
will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or
reviewed 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 LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be the ``all others'' rate of 5.77 percent, which is the
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation, as adjusted
in a subsequent remand redetermination. See Amended Final Determination
and Amended Final Determination Pursuant
[[Page 59744]]
to Court Decision. These cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain
in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure
to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping 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 Act.
Dated: October 2, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-16820 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
