Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 65082-65086 [E6-18767]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
65082
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
Dated: October 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–18784 Filed 11–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–489–807
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Turkey; Final Results and
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 5, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar)
from Turkey (71 FR 26455). This review
covers 14 producers/exporters of the
subject merchandise to the United
States. The period of review (POR) is
April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.
We are rescinding the review with
respect to 19 companies because either:
1) these companies had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR; or
2) the questionnaires sent to these
companies were returned to the
Department because of undeliverable
addresses.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
certain changes in the margin
calculations. Therefore, the final results
differ from the preliminary results. The
final weighted–average dumping
margins for the reviewed firms are listed
below in the section entitled ‘‘Final
Results of Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina
Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone (202) 482–0656 and (202)
482–0498, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Background
This review covers the following 14
producers/exporters: Colakoglu
Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret
(collectively ‘‘Colakoglu’’); Diler Demir
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret
A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
(collectively ‘‘Diler’’); Ege Metal Demir
Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal);
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S.
and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively ‘‘Ekinciler’’); Habas Sinai
ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.
(Habas); Ilhanlar Rolling and Textile
Industries, Ltd., Sti. and Ilhanlar Group
(collectively ‘‘Ilhanlar’’); Intermet A.S.
(Intermet); Iskenderun Iron & Steel
Works Co. (Iskenderun); Koc Dis Ticaret
A.S. (Koc); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan Celik
Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan);
Sozer Steel Works (Sozer); Ucel
Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(Ucel); and the Yolbulan Group
(Yolbulanlar Nak. ve Ticaret A.S.,
Yolbulan Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
and Yolbulan Dis Ticaret Ltd. Sti.).
On May 5, 2006, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on rebar from Turkey. See Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey;
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455
(May 5, 2006) (Preliminary Results).
Prior to the preliminary results, the
following companies informed the
Department that they had no shipments
to the United States during the POR:
Buyurgan Group Steel Division and
Metalenerji A.S. (Buyurgan), Cag Celik
Demir ve Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cag
Celik), Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi
A.S. (Cebitas), Cemtas Celik Makina
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas),
Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S. (Demirsan), DHT Metal (DHT),
Efesan Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and
Efe Demir Celik (Efesan), Ege Celik
Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege
Celik), Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S.
(Izmir), Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi
ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan), Kardemir Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S. (Kardemir), Kurum Demir Sanayi
ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum),
Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S.
(Tosyali), and Yesilyurt Demir Celik/
Yesilyurt Demir Cekme San ve Tic Ltd.
Sirketi (Yesilyurt). We reviewed U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
data and confirmed that there were no
entries of subject merchandise from any
of these companies. See the
Memorandum to the File from Brianne
Riker entitled, ‘‘Placing Customs Entry
Documents on the Record of the 2004–
2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,’’ dated
May 2, 2005. Consequently, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3)
and consistent with our practice, we are
rescinding our review for Buyurgan,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, DHT,
Efesan, Ege Celik, Izmir, Kaptan,
Kardemir, Kurum, Tosyali, and
Yesilyurt. For further discussion, see the
‘‘Partial Rescission of Review’’ section
of this notice, below.
The antidumping duty questionnaires
sent to Akmisa Foreign Trade Ltd. Co.
(Akmisa), Cukurova Celik Endustrisi
A.S. (Cukurova), Metas Izmir Metalurji
Fabrikasi Turk A.S. (Metas), Sivas
Demir Celik Isletmeleri A.S. (Sivas), and
ST Steel Industry and Foreign Trade
Ltd. Sti. (ST Steel) were returned to the
Department because of undeliverable
addresses. Subsequently, we contacted
the petitioners in this review and
requested that they provide alternate
addresses for these companies; however,
they were unable to do so.
Consequently, we are also rescinding
our review with respect to these
companies. For further discussion, see
the ‘‘Partial Rescission of Review’’
section of this notice.
In addition, we are reversing our
preliminary decision to base the margin
for Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman)
on adverse facts available (AFA)
because we find Kroman’s explanation
as to why it did not respond to the
questionnaire (i.e., because it did not
receive it) plausible. As a result, we are
also rescinding the review for Kroman.
For further discussion, see the ‘‘Partial
Rescission of Review’’ section of this
notice and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (Decision
Memo) at Comment 22.
Finally, in April 2006, it came to our
attention that one of Diler’s affiliated
rebar producers, Yazici Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Yazici), changed
its corporate structure prior to the
initiation of this review and is now
doing business under the name Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret
A.S. (Yazici Turizm). As a result, we
solicited information on this change
from Diler. Diler supplied this
information in April 2006. After
analyzing this information, we find that
Yazici Turizm is the successor–ininterest to Yazici. For further
discussion, see the ‘‘Successor–inInterest’’ section of this notice, below.
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results of review. In June
and July 2006, we received case briefs
from the petitioners (i.e., Gerdau
AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial
Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and
Nucor Corporation), Colakoglu, Habas,
and Kroman, and we received rebuttal
briefs from the petitioners, Colakoglu,
Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas.
The Department has conducted this
administrative review in accordance
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all stock deformed steel concrete
reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths
and coils. This includes all hot–rolled
deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,
rail steel, axle steel, or low–alloy steel.
It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii)
rebar that a processor has further
worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated
rebar. Deformed rebar is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under item numbers 7213.10.000 and
7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Successor–in-Interest
As noted above, in April 2006, Diler
informed the Department that its
affiliated producer, Yazici, merged with
another group company and is now
doing business under the name Yazici
Turizm. Based on Diler’s submission
addressing the four factors with respect
to this change in corporate structure
(i.e., management, production facilities
for the subject merchandise, supplier
relationships, and customer base), in the
preliminary results, we found that
Yazici Turizm’s organizational
structure, management, production
facilities, supplier relationships, and
customers have remained essentially
unchanged. Further, we found that
Yazici Turizm operates as the same
business entity as Yazici with respect to
the production and sale of rebar.
Therefore, we preliminarily found that
Yazici Turizm was the successor–ininterest to Yazici. See Preliminary
Results, 71 FR at 26456. Since the
preliminary results, no party to this
proceeding has commented on this issue
and we have found no additional
information that would compel us to
reverse our preliminary finding. Thus,
for purposes of these final results, we
find that Yazici Turizm is the
successor–in-interest to Yazici, and, as a
consequence, its exports of rebar are
subject to this administrative review.
For further discussion, see the
Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26456.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2004, through
March 31, 2005.
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above, Buyurgan, Cebitas,
Cemtas, Demirsan, DHT, Efesan, Ege
Celik, Izmir, Kaptan, Kardemir, Kurum,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
Tosyali, and Yesilyurt notified the
Department that they had no shipments
and/or entries of subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR. We
have confirmed this with CBP data.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the
Department’s practice, we are
rescinding our review with respect to
these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey;
Final Results, Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, and Determination To
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666
(Nov. 8, 2005); Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results, Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69
FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004).
In addition, the questionnaires sent to
Akmisa, Cukurova, Metas Izmir, Sivas,
and ST Steel were returned to the
Department because of undeliverable
addresses. Although we requested that
the petitioners provide alternate
addresses for these companies, they
were unable to do so. For further
discussion, see the Memorandum to the
File from Brianne Riker entitled,
‘‘Placing Information on the Record in
the 2004–2005 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from
Turkey,’’ dated September 20, 2005.
Because we were unable to locate these
companies, we are also rescinding our
review with respect to them.
Finally, we are reversing our
preliminary decision to base the margin
for Kroman on AFA. Rather, we are
rescinding the review for this company
because it did not receive the
questionnaire. For further discussion,
see the Decision Memo at Comment 22.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, we conducted an investigation
to determine whether Colakoglu, Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas made home market
sales of the foreign like product during
the POR at prices below their costs of
production (COP) within the meaning of
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We
performed the cost test for these final
results following the same methodology
as in the Preliminary Results, except as
discussed in the Decision Memo.
We found 20 percent or more of each
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the reporting period were at
prices less than the weighted–average
COP for this period. Thus, we
determined that these below–cost sales
were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’
within an extended period of time and
at prices which did not permit the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65083
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in the normal course of
trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of
the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of these final
results, we found that Colakoglu, Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas made below–cost
sales not in the ordinary course of trade.
Consequently, we disregarded these
sales for each respondent and used the
remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Facts Available
In the preliminary results, we
determined that, in accordance with
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use
of facts available was appropriate as the
basis for the dumping margins for the
following producer/exporters: Ege
Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun,
Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer,
Ucel, and the Yolbulan Group. See
Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26457–58.
We find that it continues to be
appropriate to apply facts available to
these respondents, with the exception of
Kroman. Section 776(a) of the Act,
provides that the Department will apply
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia,
necessary information is not available
on the record or an interested party: (1)
withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (2) fails to
provide such information within the
deadlines established, or in the form or
manner requested by the Department;
(3) significantly impedes a proceeding;
or (4) provides such information, but the
information cannot be verified.
On August 26, 2005, the Department
requested that Ege Metal, Ilhanlar,
Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc, Nurmet,
Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan
Group respond to the Department’s
antidumping duty questionnaire. The
deadline to file a response was October
3, 2005. The Department did not receive
a response from these companies. On
October 31, 2005, the Department
placed documentation on the record
confirming delivery of the
questionnaires to each company. See the
Memorandum to the File from Brianne
Riker entitled, ‘‘Placing Information on
the Record of the 2004–2005
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Turkey,’’
dated October 31, 2005. Thus, because
these companies did not respond to the
Department’s questionnaire, as in the
preliminary results, the Department
must use facts otherwise available with
regard to Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet,
Iskenderun, Koc, Nurmet, Nursan,
Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan Group,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C)
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
65084
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
of the Act of the Act. See Preliminary
Results, 71 FR at 26457–58.
Adverse Facts Available
In selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, section 776(b) of
the Act authorizes the Department to
use an adverse inference if the
Department finds that an interested
party failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of its ability to comply with
the request for information. See, e.g.,
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless
Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023,
54025–26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (Aug. 30,
2002). Adverse inferences are
appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870
(1994). Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative
evidence of bad faith on the part of a
respondent is not required before the
Department may make an adverse
inference.’’ See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). See also,
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337
F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(Nippon). We find that Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc,
Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the
Yolbulan Group did not act to the best
of their abilities in this proceeding,
within the meaning of section 776(b) of
the Act, because they failed to respond
to the Department’s questionnaire.
Therefore, an adverse inference is
warranted in selecting facts otherwise
available. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at
1382–83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use as AFA
information derived from: (1) the
petition; (2) the final determination in
the investigation; (3) any previous
review; or (4) any other information
placed on the record.
The Department’s practice, when
selecting an AFA rate from among the
possible sources of information, has
been to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the
statutory purposes of the adverse facts
available rule to induce respondents to
provide the Department with complete
and accurate information in a timely
manner.’’ See, e.g., Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792,
55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998).
Additionally, the Department’s practice
has been to assign the highest margin
determined for any party in the less–
than-fair–value (LTFV) investigation or
in any administrative review of a
specific order to respondents who have
failed to cooperate with the Department.
See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts
Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064,
40066 (July 14, 2006); Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–
Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products
from the People’s Republic of China, 65
FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at the ‘‘Facts Available’’
section.
In order to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse so as to induce
cooperation, we have assigned a rate of
41.80 percent, which was the rate
alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the
initiation of the LTFV investigation, to
Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet,
Iskenderun, Koc, Nurmet, Nursan,
Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan Group.
This rate was assigned in a previous
segment of this proceeding and is the
highest rate determined for any
respondent in any segment of this
proceeding. See Notice of Amendment
of Final Determinations of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR
9737 (Mar. 4, 1997). The Department
finds that this rate is sufficiently high as
to effectuate the purpose of the AFA
rule (i.e., we find that this rate is high
enough to encourage participation in
future segments of this proceeding in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
Act). We continue to find that the
information upon which this margin is
based has probative value and thus
satisfies the requirements of section
776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary
Results, 71 FR at 26457–58.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by
parties to this administrative review,
and to which we have responded, are
listed in the Appendix to this notice and
addressed in the Decision Memo, which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, room B–099,
of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/
. The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have made certain changes
in the margin calculations. These
changes are discussed in the relevant
sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
weighted–average margin percentages
exist for the period April 1, 2004,
through March 31, 2005:
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter
Margin Percentage
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. ...............................................................................................
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S./Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.
Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. ...............................................................................................................
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. ..............................................................................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S. .....................................................................................................
Ilhanlar Rolling and Textile Industries, Ltd., Sti. and Ilhanlar Group ..............................................................................
Intermet A.S. ....................................................................................................................................................................
Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. .................................................................................................................................
Koc Dis Ticaret A.S. ........................................................................................................................................................
Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. ...............................................................................................................................
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. .........................................................................................................................
Sozer Steel Works ...........................................................................................................................................................
Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. ...........................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
0.27 (de minimis)
0.02 (de minimis)
41.80
8.59
0.04 (de minimis)
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
41.80
65085
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter
Margin Percentage
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Yolbulanlar Nak. ve Ticaret A.S./Yolbulan Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Yolbulan Dis Ticaret Ltd., Sti. .......................
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. On March 9,
2006, Mitsui, an interested party to this
proceeding, submitted evidence
demonstrating that it was the importer
of record for certain of Diler’s POR sales.
We examined the information submitted
by Mitsui and tied it to the U.S. sales
listing, as well as to documentation
obtained at the sales verification of
Diler. We noted that Mitsui was indeed
the importer of record for the sales in
question. Therefore, for purposes of
calculating the importer–specific
assessment rates, we have treated Mitsui
as the importer of record for Diler’s
relevant POR shipments.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for
all sales made by Habas and Colakoglu,
as well as for certain sales made by
Diler, because we have the reported
entered value of the U.S. sales, we have
calculated importer–specific assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those sales.
Regarding certain of Diler’s and all of
Ekinciler’s sales, we note that these
companies did not report the entered
value for the U.S. sales in question.
Accordingly, we have calculated
importer–specific assessment rates for
the merchandise in question by
aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer and dividing this amount by
the total quantity of those sales. To
determine whether the duty assessment
rates were de minimis, in accordance
with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–
specific ad valorem ratios based on the
estimated entered value.
In addition, we will inform CBP that
Yazici Turizm is the successor–ininterest to Yazici, and we will assign a
new company–specific number to
Yazici Turizm (as part of the Diler
Group). We will instruct CBP that it
should apply to Yazici Turizm the cash
deposit rate determined for Yazici in
these final results (i.e., 0.00 percent).
This cash deposit rate will apply to all
entries of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication of these final results. See
Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin
from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This
deposit rate shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the
next administrative review in which
Yazici Turizm (as part of the Diler
Group) is reviewed. Further, pursuant to
the final results of this administrative
review, for Yazici Turizm sales
examined, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate all unliquidated entries during
the POR at the importer–specific
assessment rates determined for the
Diler Group.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
will instruct CBP to liquidate without
regard to antidumping duties any
entries for which the assessment rate is
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these
final results of review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. 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 companies included in
these preliminary results of review for
which the reviewed companies did not
know their merchandise was destined
for the United States, as well as any
companies for which we are rescinding
the review based on certifications of no
shipments. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all–others rate if there is
no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the
transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of rebar from Turkey entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided for
by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the
cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be the rates sown above,
except if the rate is less than 0.50
percent, de minimis within the meaning
of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash
deposit will be zero; 2) for previously
investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company–specific rate published for
the most recent period; 3) if the exporter
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41.80
is not a firm covered in this review, or
the LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and 4) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will continue to be 16.06
percent, the all–others rate established
in the LTFV investigation. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility, under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
results of review in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: November 1, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
Appendix – Issues in Decision
Memorandum
General Issues
1. Cost of Ferro–vanadium for
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S./Colakoglu
Dis Ticaret A.S. (Colakoglu) and
Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar
Istithsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas)
Company–Specific Issues
2. Whether to Apply Adverse Facts
Available (AFA) to Colakoglu
3. Indirect Selling Expense (ISE)
Calculation for Colakoglu
4. Depreciation Expenses for
Colakoglu
5. Affiliated Party Transaction for
Colakoglu
6. Net Financial Expense Ratio
Calculation for Colakoglu
7. Depreciation Expenses for Diler
Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret
A.S./Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
65086
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
Turizm Ticaret A.S./Diler Dis
Ticaret A.S (Diler)
8. Affiliated Party Transaction for
Diler
9. General and Administrative (G&A)
Offsets for Diler
10. Defective Bars and Edges Offset
Exclusion from the G&A and
Financial Expense Ratio Calculation
for Diler
11. Depreciation Expenses for
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi
A.S./Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S.
(Ekinciler)
12. Allocation Methodology of G&A
Expenses for Ekinciler
13. Shutdown Costs for Ekinciler
14. G&A Offsets to Costs Not Included
in the Reported Costs for Ekinciler
15. G&A Offsets to Costs Related to
Prior Periods for Ekinciler
16. Calculation of the G&A and
Financial Expense Denominator for
Ekinciler
17. Financial Expense Exclusions
from Ekinciler’s Reported Costs
18. Clerical Error for Habas
19. Depreciation Expenses for Habas
20. Bartered Billets for Habas
21. Habas’ Financial Statements
22. Whether to Apply AFA to Kroman
[FR Doc. E6–18767 Filed 11–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 082906A]
RIN 0648–AU89
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Shark Management Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement;
request for comments.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Based on several new shark
stock assessments, NMFS has
determined that a number of shark
fisheries are overfished. As a result,
NMFS announces its intent to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the
potential effects on the human
environment and to initiate an
amendment to the Consolidated Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). The EIS and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
amendment will examine management
alternatives available to rebuild sandbar,
dusky, and porbeagle sharks, consistent
with the shark stock assessments, the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other
relevant Federal laws. NMFS is
requesting comments on a range of
commercial and recreational
management measures including, but
not limited to, quota levels, regional and
seasonal quotas, retention limits,
minimum sizes, and time/area closures.
DATES: Comments on this action must be
received no later than 5 p.m., local time,
on February 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
action should be mailed to Karyl
Brewster-Geisz, Highly Migratory
Species Management Division by any of
the following methods:
• E-mail: SF1.082906A@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line the following
identifier: ‘‘I.D. 082906A.’’
• Written: 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark
the outside of the envelope ‘‘Scoping
Comments on Amendment 2 to HMS
FMP.’’
• Fax: (301) 713–1917.
For a copy of the stock assessments,
please contact Sarah McTee or Karyl
Brewster-Geisz at (301) 713–2347.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karyl Brewster-Geisz (301) 713–2347 or
Jackie Wilson (404) 806–7622.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Determination of Overfished Shark
Fisheries
The Atlantic shark fisheries are
managed under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented
by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
NMFS’ determination of the status of a
stock relative to overfishing and an
overfished condition is based on both
the removal of fish from the stock
through overfishing (the exploitation
rate) and the current stock size.
Thresholds used to determine the status
of Atlantic HMS are fully described in
Chapter 3 of the 1999 FMP for Atlantic
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. A
species is considered overfished when
the current biomass is less than the
minimum stock size threshold. The
minimum stock size threshold is
determined based on the natural
mortality of the stock and the biomass
at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY).
Maximum sustainable yield is the
maximum long-term average yield that
can be produced by a stock on a
continuing basis. The biomass can be
lower than BMSY, and the stock not
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
declared overfished as long as the
biomass is above the biomass at the
minimum stock size threshold.
Overfishing may be occurring on a
species if the current fishing mortality is
greater than the fishing mortality (F) at
maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) (F >
FMSY). In the case of F, the maximum
fishing mortality threshold is FMSY.
Thus, if F exceeds FMSY, the stock is
experiencing overfishing.
Background
Large Coastal Sharks (LCS)
The LCS complex is comprised of 11
species including sandbar, silky, tiger,
blacktip, spinner, bull, lemon, nurse,
scalloped hammerhead, great
hammerhead, and smooth hammerhead
sharks. Since the 1993 Shark FMP, LCS
have been considered overfished, and
management has been based on the
results of assessments on the complex as
a whole. The 2002 LCS stock assessment
found that the LCS complex was
overfished with overfishing occurring;
sandbar sharks were not overfished but
overfishing was occurring; and blacktip
sharks were rebuilt and healthy. The
latest 2005/2006 stock assessment of
LCS in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico was recently completed (July 24,
2006; 71 FR 41774). This assessment
was conducted according to the
Southeast Data, Assessment, and
Review (SEDAR) process, was peerreviewed, provides an update on the
status of LCS stocks, and projects their
future abundance under a variety of
catch levels in waters off the U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The
2005/2006 assessment includes catch
estimates, new biological data, and a
number of fishery-independent catch
rate series, as well as extended fisherydependent catch rate series.
Unlike past assessments, the 2005/
2006 LCS stock assessment determined
that it is inappropriate to assess the LCS
complex as a whole. Due to the
variation in life history parameters,
different intrinsic rates of increase, and
different catch and abundance data for
all the species included in the LCS
complex, the peer reviewers felt it was
unclear what exactly the results of the
assessment represented, making it
impossible to support the use of the
results for management of the complex.
The peer reviewers also felt that
previous assessments that used the same
approach and similar data would
receive the same criticisms. NMFS is
continuing to examine viable options to
assess shark populations. Based on
these results, NMFS is changing the
status of the LCS complex from
overfished to unknown.
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65082-65086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18767]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-489-807
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in
Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 5, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars
(rebar) from Turkey (71 FR 26455). This review covers 14 producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period
of review (POR) is April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. We are
rescinding the review with respect to 19 companies because either: 1)
these companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR;
or 2) the questionnaires sent to these companies were returned to the
Department because of undeliverable addresses.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average
dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0656 and (202) 482-0498, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This review covers the following 14 producers/exporters: Colakoglu
Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret (collectively ``Colakoglu'');
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi
ve Turizm Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively
``Diler''); Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal);
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively ``Ekinciler''); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); Ilhanlar Rolling and Textile Industries, Ltd.,
Sti. and Ilhanlar Group (collectively ``Ilhanlar''); Intermet A.S.
(Intermet); Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. (Iskenderun); Koc Dis
Ticaret A.S. (Koc); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet);
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan); Sozer Steel Works
(Sozer); Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel); and the
Yolbulan Group (Yolbulanlar Nak. ve Ticaret A.S., Yolbulan Metal Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S. and Yolbulan Dis Ticaret Ltd. Sti.).
On May 5, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on rebar from Turkey. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455 (May 5, 2006)
(Preliminary Results).
Prior to the preliminary results, the following companies informed
the Department that they had no shipments to the United States during
the POR: Buyurgan Group Steel Division and Metalenerji A.S. (Buyurgan),
Cag Celik Demir ve Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cag Celik), Cebitas Demir
Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas), Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S. (Cemtas), Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan),
DHT Metal (DHT), Efesan Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Efe Demir
Celik (Efesan), Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege
Celik), Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir), Kaptan Demir Celik
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan), Kardemir - Karabuk Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kardemir), Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret
Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum), Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali),
and Yesilyurt Demir Celik/Yesilyurt Demir Cekme San ve Tic Ltd. Sirketi
(Yesilyurt). We reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data
and confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from
any of these companies. See the Memorandum to the File from Brianne
Riker entitled, ``Placing Customs Entry Documents on the Record of the
2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 2, 2005.
Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent
with our practice, we are rescinding our review for Buyurgan, Cebitas,
Cemtas, Demirsan, DHT, Efesan, Ege Celik, Izmir, Kaptan, Kardemir,
Kurum, Tosyali, and Yesilyurt. For further discussion, see the
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
The antidumping duty questionnaires sent to Akmisa Foreign Trade
Ltd. Co. (Akmisa), Cukurova Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cukurova), Metas
Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A.S. (Metas), Sivas Demir Celik
Isletmeleri A.S. (Sivas), and ST Steel Industry and Foreign Trade Ltd.
Sti. (ST Steel) were returned to the Department because of
undeliverable addresses. Subsequently, we contacted the petitioners in
this review and requested that they provide alternate addresses for
these companies; however, they were unable to do so. Consequently, we
are also rescinding our review with respect to these companies. For
further discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of
this notice.
In addition, we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the
margin for Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman) on adverse facts available
(AFA) because we find Kroman's explanation as to why it did not respond
to the questionnaire (i.e., because it did not receive it) plausible.
As a result, we are also rescinding the review for Kroman. For further
discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this
notice and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision
Memo) at Comment 22.
Finally, in April 2006, it came to our attention that one of
Diler's affiliated rebar producers, Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Yazici), changed its corporate structure prior to the
initiation of this review and is now doing business under the name
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S. (Yazici Turizm). As a
result, we solicited information on this change from Diler. Diler
supplied this information in April 2006. After analyzing this
information, we find that Yazici Turizm is the successor-in-interest to
Yazici. For further discussion, see the ``Successor-in-Interest''
section of this notice, below.
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review.
In June and July 2006, we received case briefs from the petitioners
(i.e., Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI
Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation), Colakoglu, Habas, and Kroman, and
we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, Colakoglu, Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance
[[Page 65083]]
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated,
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Successor-in-Interest
As noted above, in April 2006, Diler informed the Department that
its affiliated producer, Yazici, merged with another group company and
is now doing business under the name Yazici Turizm. Based on Diler's
submission addressing the four factors with respect to this change in
corporate structure (i.e., management, production facilities for the
subject merchandise, supplier relationships, and customer base), in the
preliminary results, we found that Yazici Turizm's organizational
structure, management, production facilities, supplier relationships,
and customers have remained essentially unchanged. Further, we found
that Yazici Turizm operates as the same business entity as Yazici with
respect to the production and sale of rebar. Therefore, we
preliminarily found that Yazici Turizm was the successor-in-interest to
Yazici. See Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26456. Since the preliminary
results, no party to this proceeding has commented on this issue and we
have found no additional information that would compel us to reverse
our preliminary finding. Thus, for purposes of these final results, we
find that Yazici Turizm is the successor-in-interest to Yazici, and, as
a consequence, its exports of rebar are subject to this administrative
review. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Results, 71 FR at
26456.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above, Buyurgan, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, DHT, Efesan,
Ege Celik, Izmir, Kaptan, Kardemir, Kurum, Tosyali, and Yesilyurt
notified the Department that they had no shipments and/or entries of
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have
confirmed this with CBP data. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are
rescinding our review with respect to these companies. See, e.g.,
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005);
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004).
In addition, the questionnaires sent to Akmisa, Cukurova, Metas
Izmir, Sivas, and ST Steel were returned to the Department because of
undeliverable addresses. Although we requested that the petitioners
provide alternate addresses for these companies, they were unable to do
so. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Brianne
Riker entitled, ``Placing Information on the Record in the 2004-2005
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated September 20, 2005.
Because we were unable to locate these companies, we are also
rescinding our review with respect to them.
Finally, we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the
margin for Kroman on AFA. Rather, we are rescinding the review for this
company because it did not receive the questionnaire. For further
discussion, see the Decision Memo at Comment 22.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and
Habas made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR
at prices below their costs of production (COP) within the meaning of
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these
final results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary
Results, except as discussed in the Decision Memo.
We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of
trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that
Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas made below-cost sales not in the
ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for
each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Facts Available
In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was
appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following
producer/exporters: Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc,
Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan Group. See
Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26457-58. We find that it continues to be
appropriate to apply facts available to these respondents, with the
exception of Kroman. Section 776(a) of the Act, provides that the
Department will apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia,
necessary information is not available on the record or an interested
party: (1) withholds information that has been requested by the
Department; (2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines
established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department; (3)
significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides such information,
but the information cannot be verified.
On August 26, 2005, the Department requested that Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and
the Yolbulan Group respond to the Department's antidumping duty
questionnaire. The deadline to file a response was October 3, 2005. The
Department did not receive a response from these companies. On October
31, 2005, the Department placed documentation on the record confirming
delivery of the questionnaires to each company. See the Memorandum to
the File from Brianne Riker entitled, ``Placing Information on the
Record of the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated
October 31, 2005. Thus, because these companies did not respond to the
Department's questionnaire, as in the preliminary results, the
Department must use facts otherwise available with regard to Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and
the Yolbulan Group, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C)
[[Page 65084]]
of the Act of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26457-58.
Adverse Facts Available
In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023,
54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67
FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement
of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore,
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296,
27340 (May 19, 1997). See also, Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,
337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We find that Ege Metal,
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and
the Yolbulan Group did not act to the best of their abilities in this
proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because
they failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, an
adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available.
See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as
AFA information derived from: (1) the petition; (2) the final
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any
other information placed on the record.
The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.''
See, e.g., Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Negative Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002);
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb.
23, 1998). Additionally, the Department's practice has been to assign
the highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review of a specific
order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the Department.
See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064, 40066 (July 14, 2006); Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at the ``Facts Available'' section.
In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to
induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 41.80 percent, which was
the rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation of the
LTFV investigation, to Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc,
Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan Group. This rate was
assigned in a previous segment of this proceeding and is the highest
rate determined for any respondent in any segment of this proceeding.
See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR
9737 (Mar. 4, 1997). The Department finds that this rate is
sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA rule (i.e.,
we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in
future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of
the Act). We continue to find that the information upon which this
margin is based has probative value and thus satisfies the requirements
of section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26457-
58.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in
the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records
Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain
changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the
relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages
exist for the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis 0.27 (de minimis)
Ticaret A.S.................................
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ 0.02 (de minimis)
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret
A.S./Diler Dis Ticaret A.S..................
Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.. 41.80
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and 8.59
Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S...................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal 0.04 (de minimis)
Endustrisi A.S..............................
Ilhanlar Rolling and Textile Industries, 41.80
Ltd., Sti. and Ilhanlar Group...............
Intermet A.S................................. 41.80
Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co............. 41.80
Koc Dis Ticaret A.S.......................... 41.80
Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S........... 41.80
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S........ 41.80
Sozer Steel Works............................ 41.80
Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S........ 41.80
[[Page 65085]]
Yolbulanlar Nak. ve Ticaret A.S./Yolbulan 41.80
Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Yolbulan Dis
Ticaret Ltd., Sti...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. On March 9, 2006, Mitsui, an
interested party to this proceeding, submitted evidence demonstrating
that it was the importer of record for certain of Diler's POR sales. We
examined the information submitted by Mitsui and tied it to the U.S.
sales listing, as well as to documentation obtained at the sales
verification of Diler. We noted that Mitsui was indeed the importer of
record for the sales in question. Therefore, for purposes of
calculating the importer-specific assessment rates, we have treated
Mitsui as the importer of record for Diler's relevant POR shipments.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by Habas and
Colakoglu, as well as for certain sales made by Diler, because we have
the reported entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated
importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those sales.
Regarding certain of Diler's and all of Ekinciler's sales, we note
that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S.
sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and
dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine
whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated
importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered
value.
In addition, we will inform CBP that Yazici Turizm is the
successor-in-interest to Yazici, and we will assign a new company-
specific number to Yazici Turizm (as part of the Diler Group). We will
instruct CBP that it should apply to Yazici Turizm the cash deposit
rate determined for Yazici in these final results (i.e., 0.00 percent).
This cash deposit rate will apply to all entries of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of these final results. See Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This
deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review in which Yazici Turizm (as
part of the Diler Group) is reviewed. Further, pursuant to the final
results of this administrative review, for Yazici Turizm sales
examined, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all unliquidated entries
during the POR at the importer-specific assessment rates determined for
the Diler Group.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. 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 companies included in these preliminary results of
review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise
was destined for the United States, as well as any companies for which
we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments.
In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries
at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be the rates sown above, except if the rate is less than
0.50 percent, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1),
the cash deposit will be zero; 2) for previously investigated companies
not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the LTFV
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 1, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum
General Issues
1. Cost of Ferro-vanadium for Colakoglu Metalurji A.S./Colakoglu
Dis Ticaret A.S. (Colakoglu) and Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas)
Company-Specific Issues
2. Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to Colakoglu
3. Indirect Selling Expense (ISE) Calculation for Colakoglu
4. Depreciation Expenses for Colakoglu
5. Affiliated Party Transaction for Colakoglu
6. Net Financial Expense Ratio Calculation for Colakoglu
7. Depreciation Expenses for Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve
Ticaret A.S./Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve
[[Page 65086]]
Turizm Ticaret A.S./Diler Dis Ticaret A.S (Diler)
8. Affiliated Party Transaction for Diler
9. General and Administrative (G&A) Offsets for Diler
10. Defective Bars and Edges Offset Exclusion from the G&A and
Financial Expense Ratio Calculation for Diler
11. Depreciation Expenses for Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./
Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (Ekinciler)
12. Allocation Methodology of G&A Expenses for Ekinciler
13. Shutdown Costs for Ekinciler
14. G&A Offsets to Costs Not Included in the Reported Costs for
Ekinciler
15. G&A Offsets to Costs Related to Prior Periods for Ekinciler
16. Calculation of the G&A and Financial Expense Denominator for
Ekinciler
17. Financial Expense Exclusions from Ekinciler's Reported Costs
18. Clerical Error for Habas
19. Depreciation Expenses for Habas
20. Bartered Billets for Habas
21. Habas' Financial Statements
22. Whether to Apply AFA to Kroman
[FR Doc. E6-18767 Filed 11-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
