Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65077-65082 [E6-18784]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
product, we relied on rates derived from
the financial statements of Pidilite
Industries, Ltd., an Indian producer of
comparable merchandise. We applied
these ratios to Hanchem’s costs
(determined as noted above) for
materials, labor, and energy. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum and
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
The weighted-average dumping
margin is as follows:
Cash Deposit Requirements
Margin
percentage
Tianjin Hanchem International
Trading Co., Ltd. ...................
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Manufacturer/producer/exporter
0.00
Disclosure
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will generally be held two
days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19
CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may
submit case briefs and/or written
comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and
rebuttals to written comments, limited
to issues raised in such briefs or
comments, may be filed no later than 37
days after the date of publication. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties
submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an
additional copy of those comments on
diskette. The Department will issue the
final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any
comments, and at a hearing, within 120
days of publication of these preliminary
results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we
will calculate, where applicable, the
importer-specific ad valorem duty
assessment rate based on the ratio of the
total amount of the dumping margins
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those same sales.
We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries covered by this review if any
importer-specific assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this
review is above de minimis.
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
Hanchem, the cash deposit rate will be
that established in the final results of
this review (except, if the rate is zero or
de minimis, no cash deposit will be
required); (2) for previously investigated
or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters
not listed above that have separate rates,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the exporter-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 217.94 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. 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 also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65077
We are issuing and publishing these
preliminary results of review in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.221(b).
Dated: November 1, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–18787 Filed 11–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–274–804)
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 1, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) initiated an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on carbon and
alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) from
Trinidad and Tobago for the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) October 1, 2004,
through September 30, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that
during the POR, Mittal Steel Point Lisas
Limited (‘‘MSPL’’) and its affiliates
Mittal Steel North America Inc.
(‘‘MSNA’’) and Mittal Walker Wire Inc.
(collectively ‘‘Mittal’’) did not make
sales of subject merchandise at less than
normal value (‘‘NV’’) (i.e., sales were
made at de minimis dumping margins).
If these preliminary results are adopted
in the final results of this administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments in this
segment of the proceeding should also
submit with them: (1) a statement of the
issues and (2) a brief summary of the
comments. Further, parties submitting
written comments are requested to
provide the Department with an
electronic version of the public version
of any such comments on diskette.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
65078
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482–
3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on wire rod
from Trinidad and Tobago; see Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67
FR 65945 (‘‘Wire Rod Orders’’). On
October 3, 2005, we published in the
Federal Register the Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 70
FR 57558.
We received timely requests for
review from petitioners1, and Mittal2, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2).
On December 1, 2005, we published the
notice of initiation of this antidumping
duty administrative review covering the
period October 1, 2004, through
September 30, 2005, naming Mittal as
the respondent. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Deferral of
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 72107
(December 1, 2005). On December 21,
2005, we sent a questionnaire to Mittal.3
Mittal submitted its responses to
section A of the Department’s
questionnaire on February 10, 2006, and
to sections B through E on February 21,
2006. On March 2, 6, and 14, 2006, the
petitioners submitted comments on
Mittal’s questionnaire response.
On March 16, 2006, the Department
issued a section A through C
supplemental questionnaire to Mittal.
We received the responses to the
supplemental questionnaire on April 24,
and May 1, 2006. We issued a second
supplemental questionnaire for sections
A and D on April 17, 2006. We received
the response to the second
supplemental questionnaire on May 22,
1 The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc.
(formerly Georgetown Steel Company), Gerdau
Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.),
Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North
Star Steel Texas, Inc.
2 On July 6, 2005, we found that Mittal Steel Point
Lisas Limited is the successor-in-interest to CIL. See
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and
Tobago, 70 FR 38871.
3 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices,
Markets and Merchandise
Section B: Comparison Market Sales
Section C: Sales to the United States
Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed
Value
Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or
Assembly Performed in the United States
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
2006. On May 30, 2006, the petitioners
submitted comments on the April 24,
2006, supplemental sales questionnaire
response. On June 21, 2006, we issued
a third supplemental questionnaire to
Mittal. We received the response to the
third supplemental questionnaire on
July 12, 2006.
On September 15, 2006, we met with
the petitioners regarding these
preliminary results. See Ex Parte
Meeting Memos from Stephanie Moore
to the File dated September 15, 2006,
and October 4, 2006. On September 18,
2006, we issued an additional
questionnaire to Mittal. Mittal
submitted its response on October 4,
2006.
On October 10, 2006, the Department
received a reconciliation of Mittal’s
home market and U.S. sales database to
its income statements. On October 16,
2006, the petitioners submitted
comments with regard to the
preliminary results.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order
is certain hot–rolled products of carbon
steel and alloy steel, in coils, of
approximately round cross section, 5.00
mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in
solid cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel
products possessing the above–noted
physical characteristics and meeting the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) definitions for
(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high
nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and
(e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods.
Also excluded are (f) free machining
steel products (i.e., products that
contain by weight one or more of the
following elements: 0.03 percent or
more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of
bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur,
more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus,
more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or
more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are
1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod
and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire
rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality
rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire
cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm
or more but not more than 6.0 mm in
cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an
average partial decarburization of no
more than 70 microns in depth
(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non–deformable inclusions
greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35
microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or
better using European Method NFA 04–
114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to
a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or
fewer breaks per ton, and (vii)
containing by weight the following
elements in the proportions shown: (1)
0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less
than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3)
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate,
of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006
percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not
more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium.
This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod
is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire bead
quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or
more but not more than 7.0 mm in
cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an
average partial decarburization of no
more than 70 microns in depth
(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non–deformable inclusions
greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35
microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or
better using European Method NFA 04–
114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than
0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to
a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5
or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii)
containing by weight the following
elements in the proportions shown: (1)
0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less
than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,
(3) 0.040 percent or less, in the
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4)
0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5)
either not more than 0.15 percent, in the
aggregate, of copper, nickel and
chromium (if chromium is not
specified), or not more than 0.10 percent
in the aggregate of copper and nickel
and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30
percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of the grade 1080 tire
cord quality wire rod and the grade
1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an
inclusion will be considered to be
deformable if its ratio of length
(measured along the axis - that is, the
direction of rolling - of the rod) over
thickness (measured on the same
inclusion in a direction perpendicular
to the axis of the rod) is equal to or
greater than three. The size of an
inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns
and 35 microns limitations is the
measurement of the largest dimension
observed on a longitudinal section
measured in a direction perpendicular
to the axis of the rod. This measurement
methodology applies only to inclusions
on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality
wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire
bead quality wire rod that are entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia,
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago,
and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review, 68 FR 64079,
64081 (November 12, 2003).
The designation of the products as
‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’
indicates the acceptability of the
product for use in the production of tire
cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other
rubber reinforcement applications such
as hose wire. These quality designations
are presumed to indicate that these
products are being used in tire cord, tire
bead, and other rubber reinforcement
applications, and such merchandise
intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or
other rubber reinforcement applications
is not included in the scope. However,
should petitioners or other interested
parties provide a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that there exists a
pattern of importation of such products
for other than those applications, end–
use certification for the importation of
such products may be required. Under
such circumstances, only the importers
of record would normally be required to
certify the end use of the imported
merchandise.
All products meeting the physical
description of subject merchandise that
are not specifically excluded are
included in this scope.
The products under review are
currently classifiable under subheadings
7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090,
7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590,
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090,
7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038,
7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010,
7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090,
7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051,
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and
7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of
this order is dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), all products produced by the
respondent covered by the description
in the Scope of the Order section, above,
and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during
the POR are considered to be foreign
like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. We have
relied on eight criteria to match U.S.
sales of subject merchandise to
comparison market sales of the foreign
like product: grade range, carbon
content range, surface quality,
deoxidation, maximum total residual
content, heat treatment, diameter range,
and coating. These characteristics have
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
been weighted by the Department where
appropriate. Where there were no sales
of identical merchandise in the home
market made in the ordinary course of
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to the next most
similar foreign like product on the basis
of the characteristics listed above.
Furthermore, pursuant to section
771(16) of the Act, we did not use the
wire rod which was not identified as
prime on MSPL’s price list for matching
purposes. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70
FR 69512 (November 16, 2005)
(‘‘Second Review’’) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of wire
rod from Trinidad and Tobago were
made in the United States at less than
NV, we compared the export price
(‘‘EP’’) or constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) to the NV, as described in the
‘‘Export Price and Constructed Export
Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of
this notice. In accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
monthly weighted–average prices for
NV and compared these to individual
U.S. transactions.
Export Price and Constructed Export
Price
For the price to the United States, we
used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in
accordance with sections 772(a) and (b)
of the Act. We calculated EP when the
merchandise was sold by the producer
or exporter outside the United States
directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to
importation and when CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts
on the record. We calculated CEP for
those sales where a person in the United
States, affiliated with the foreign
exporter or acting for the account of the
exporter, made the sale to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States of the subject merchandise. We
based EP and CEP on the packed prices
charged to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States and the
applicable terms of sale. When
appropriate, we reduced these prices to
reflect discounts and increased the
prices to reflect billing adjustments.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2)
of the Act, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for movement expenses
including inland freight, international
freight, demurrage expenses, marine
insurance, survey fees, U.S. customs
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65079
duties and various U.S. movement
expenses from arrival to delivery.
For CEP, in accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate,
we deducted from the starting price
those selling expenses that were
incurred in selling the subject
merchandise in the United States,
including direct selling expenses (cost
of credit, warranty, and further
manufacturing). In addition, we
deducted indirect selling expenses that
related to economic activity in the
United States. These expenses include
certain indirect selling expenses
incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors.
We also deducted from CEP an amount
for profit in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Furthermore, we recalculated MSNA’s
credit expense and inventory carrying
costs as we did in the final results of the
first and second administrative reviews.
See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70
FR 12648 (March 15, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and
Second Review and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
To determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV, we compared Mittal’s
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of its
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Mittal
had an aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product
that was greater than five percent of its
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, we determined
that the home market was viable.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed
segment of the proceeding in which
Mittal participated, the Department
found that the respondent made sales in
the home market at prices below the
cost of producing the merchandise and
excluded such sales from the
calculation of NV. See Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and
Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and
Tobago, 70 FR 39990, 39993 (July 12,
2005) and Second Review at 69512.
Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
65080
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
Department determined that there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that Mittal made steel wire rod sales in
Trinidad and Tobago at prices below the
cost of production (‘‘COP’’) in this
administrative review. As a result, we
initiated a COP inquiry for Mittal.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated a weighted–
average COP based on the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for
selling, general, and administrative
expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), packing expenses,
and interest expense.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of
the Act, we compared the weighted–
average COP to the per–unit price of the
comparison market sales of the foreign
like product, to determine whether
these sales were made at prices below
the COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities, and
whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. We
determined the net comparison market
prices for the below–cost test by
subtracting from the gross unit price any
applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect
selling expenses and packing expenses
which were excluded from COP for
comparison purposes.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard
any below–cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below–
cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more
of a respondent’s sales of a given
product during the POR were at prices
less than the COP, we determined such
sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of
the Act. Further, the sales were made
within an extended period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of
the Act, because we examined below–
cost sales occurring during the entire
POR. In such cases, because we
compared prices to POR–average costs,
we also determined that such sales were
not made at prices which would permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of this
administrative review, we disregarded
below–cost sales of a given product and
used the remaining sales as the basis for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum
for Mittal, dated October 31, 2006, on
file in the Central Records Unit, room
B099 of the main Department building,
for our calculation methodology and
results.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
We based home market prices on
packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers
in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted
the starting price for inland freight
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of
the Act. In addition, for comparisons
made to EP sales, we made adjustments
for differences in circumstances of sale
(‘‘COS’’) pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made
COS adjustments by deducting direct
selling expenses incurred for home
market sales (credit expense) and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(credit and warranty directly linked to
sales transactions). No other
adjustments to NV were claimed or
allowed.
When comparing U.S. sales with
comparison market sales of similar, but
not identical, merchandise, we also
made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We
based this adjustment on the difference
in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign like product and subject
merchandise, using POR–average costs.
D. Level of Trade/Constructed Export
Price Offset
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on
sales in the comparison market at the
same level–of-trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP
or CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that
of the starting–price sales in the
comparison market or, when NV is
based on CV, that of the sales from
which we derive SG&A expenses and
profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also
the level of the starting–price sale,
which is usually from exporter to
importer. For CEP transactions, it is the
level of the constructed sale from the
exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than EP or CEP
transactions, we examine stages in the
marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated
customer. If the comparison market
sales are at a different LOT and the
difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
price differences between the sales on
which NV is based and comparison
market sales at the LOT of the export
transaction, we make a LOT adjustment
under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
For CEP sales, if the NV level is more
remote from the factory than the CEP
level and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in
the levels between NV and CEP affects
price comparability, we adjust NV
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act
(the CEP–offset provision).
In the investigation and previous two
reviews, Mittal reported services similar
to this review, such as strategic and
economic planning, sales forecasting,
sales force development, solicitation of
orders, technical advice, price
negotiation, processing purchase orders,
invoicing, extending credit, freight and
delivery arrangements, managing
accounts receivable, and making
arrangements for warranties related to
sales. In the final results of the second
review, we noted that in our LOT
analysis for CEP sales we only consider
the selling activities reflected in the
price after the deduction of the expenses
incurred for the U.S. economic activity
and the record indicates that for Mittal’s
CEP sales there are substantially fewer
services performed than the sales in its
home market. Therefore, we determined
that Mittal’s home market sales were
made at a more advanced stage of the
marketing process than the CEP sales to
the affiliates and therefore are at a
different LOT within the meaning of 19
CFR 351.412. For the final results of the
second review, we explained in
Comment 3 that we disagreed with
Mittal’s characterization of the level of
activity reported for certain services, but
on balance we agreed with Mittal’s CEP
offset claim. See Second Review and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
In analyzing this issue in this review,
we obtained information from Mittal
about the marketing stages involved in
the reported U.S. and home market
sales, including a description of the
selling activities performed by Mittal for
each channel of distribution. In
identifying LOTs for EP and home
market sales, we considered the selling
functions reflected in the starting price
before any adjustments. For CEP sales,
we considered only the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction
of expenses pursuant to section 772(d)
of the Act.
In the home market, Mittal reported
sales to end–users as its only channel of
distribution. In the U.S. market, Mittal
reported sales through two channels of
distribution, one involving sales made
directly by Mittal to an unaffiliated
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 7, 2006 / Notices
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
trading company, and the second
involving sales made by Mittal’s
affiliated U.S. resellers to trading
companies, OEMs, distributors, and
end–users. We have determined that the
sales made by Mittal directly to U.S.
customers are EP sales and those made
by Mittal’s affiliated U.S. resellers
constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we
have found that U.S. sales and home
market sales were made at the same
LOT, whereas in the previous review we
found that there were more selling
functions with a greater level of activity
in the home market. Accordingly, we
did not find it necessary to make a LOT
adjustment or CEP offset. For further
explanation of our LOT analysis see the
Preliminary Sales Calculation
Memorandum for Mittal Steel Point
Lisas Limited from Dennis McClure and
Stephanie Moore to the file dated
October 31, 2006.
(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. Further,
parties submitting written comments are
requested to provide the Department
with an additional copy of the public
version of any such comments on
diskette. The Department will issue the
final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, or at a hearing, within 120
days of publication of these preliminary
results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rate
The Department shall determine and
CBP shall assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b), the Department
calculated an assessment rate for each
importer of the subject merchandise.
Upon issuance of the final results of this
administrative review, if any importer–
Currency Conversion
specific assessment rates calculated in
For purposes of these preliminary
the final results are above de minimis
results, we made currency conversions
(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the
in accordance with section 773A(a) of
Department will issue appraisement
the Act, based on the official exchange
instructions directly to CBP to assess
rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales,
antidumping duties on appropriate
as obtained from the Federal Reserve
entries by applying the assessment rate
Bank.
to the entered value of the merchandise.
For assessment purposes, we calculated
Preliminary Results of Review
importer–specific assessment rates for
As a result of our review, we
the subject merchandise by aggregating
preliminarily determine that the
the dumping margins for all U.S. sales
following weighted–average dumping
to each importer and dividing the
margin exists for the period October 1,
amount by the total entered value of the
2004, through September 30, 2005:
sales to that importer. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
Weighted–Average to CBP 15 days after the date of
Producer/Manufacturer
Margin
publication of the final results of
review.
Mittal Steel Point Lisas
The Department clarified its
Limited .......................
0.06% (i.e., de
minimis ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
The Department will disclose
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
calculations performed within five days Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
of the date of publication of this notice
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
to the parties of this proceeding in
Policy Notice). This clarification will
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An apply to entries of subject merchandise
interested party may request a hearing
during the period of review produced by
within 30 days of publication of these
companies included in these final
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
results of reviews for which the
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
reviewed companies did not know that
will be held 37 days after the date of
the merchandise it sold to the
publication, or the first working day
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading
thereafter, unless the Department alters
company, or exporter) was destined for
the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). the United States. In such instances, we
Interested parties may submit case briefs will instruct CBP to liquidate
no later than 30 days after the date of
unreviewed entries at the all–others rate
publication of these preliminary results
if there is no rate for the intermediary
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
involved in the transaction. See
Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised
Assessment Policy Notice for a full
in the case briefs, may be filed no later
discussion of this clarification.
than 35 days after the date of
Cash Deposit Requirements
publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Parties who submit arguments are
To calculate the cash deposit rate for
requested to submit with the argument
each producer and/or exporter included
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Nov 06, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65081
in this administrative review, we
divided the total dumping margins for
each company by the total net value for
that company’s sales during the review
period.
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of wire rod from Trinidad
and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The
cash deposit rate for the company listed
above will be the rate established in the
final results of this review, except if the
rate is less than 0.5 percent and,
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit
rate will be zero; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate published for the most recent final
results in which that manufacturer or
exporter participated; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the original less than
fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the
most recent final results for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and,
(4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
any previous review conducted by the
Department, the cash deposit rate will
be 11.40 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate
established in the LTFV investigation.
See Wire Rod Orders.
These cash 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 increase the subsequent
assessment of the antidumping duties
by the amount of antidumping duties
reimbursed.
These preliminary results of this
administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM
07NON1
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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65077-65082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18784]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-274-804)
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (``wire rod'') from
Trinidad and Tobago for the period of review (``POR'') October 1, 2004,
through September 30, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Mittal Steel Point
Lisas Limited (``MSPL'') and its affiliates Mittal Steel North America
Inc. (``MSNA'') and Mittal Walker Wire Inc. (collectively ``Mittal'')
did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value
(``NV'') (i.e., sales were made at de minimis dumping margins). If
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding
should also submit with them: (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a
brief summary of the comments. Further, parties submitting written
comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic
version of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution
[[Page 65078]]
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202)
482-3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and
Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (``Wire Rod Orders''). On October 3,
2005, we published in the Federal Register the Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 57558.
We received timely requests for review from petitioners\1\, and
Mittal\2\, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On December 1,
2005, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review covering the period October 1, 2004, through
September 30, 2005, naming Mittal as the respondent. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral
of Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 72107 (December 1, 2005). On December
21, 2005, we sent a questionnaire to Mittal.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc. (formerly Georgetown
Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel
Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North
Star Steel Texas, Inc.
\2\ On July 6, 2005, we found that Mittal Steel Point Lisas
Limited is the successor-in-interest to CIL. See Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 38871.
\3\ Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and
Merchandise
Section B: Comparison Market Sales
Section C: Sales to the United States
Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or Assembly Performed in
the United States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mittal submitted its responses to section A of the Department's
questionnaire on February 10, 2006, and to sections B through E on
February 21, 2006. On March 2, 6, and 14, 2006, the petitioners
submitted comments on Mittal's questionnaire response.
On March 16, 2006, the Department issued a section A through C
supplemental questionnaire to Mittal. We received the responses to the
supplemental questionnaire on April 24, and May 1, 2006. We issued a
second supplemental questionnaire for sections A and D on April 17,
2006. We received the response to the second supplemental questionnaire
on May 22, 2006. On May 30, 2006, the petitioners submitted comments on
the April 24, 2006, supplemental sales questionnaire response. On June
21, 2006, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Mittal. We
received the response to the third supplemental questionnaire on July
12, 2006.
On September 15, 2006, we met with the petitioners regarding these
preliminary results. See Ex Parte Meeting Memos from Stephanie Moore to
the File dated September 15, 2006, and October 4, 2006. On September
18, 2006, we issued an additional questionnaire to Mittal. Mittal
submitted its response on October 4, 2006.
On October 10, 2006, the Department received a reconciliation of
Mittal's home market and U.S. sales database to its income statements.
On October 16, 2006, the petitioners submitted comments with regard to
the preliminary results.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid
cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted
physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (``HTSUS'') definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b)
tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e)
concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free
machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or
more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05
percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than
0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more
than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA
04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a
length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter
of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing
by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3)
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4)
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent,
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv)
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered
to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that
is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on
the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod)
is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for
purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the
measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section
measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This
measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade
1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead
quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after July 24, 2003. Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire
[[Page 65079]]
Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68
FR 64079, 64081 (November 12, 2003).
The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use
certification for the importation of such products may be required.
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this
scope.
The products under review are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590,
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090,
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051,
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), all products produced by the respondent covered
by the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold
in Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like
product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality,
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.
Furthermore, pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we did not use the
wire rod which was not identified as prime on MSPL's price list for
matching purposes. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 69512 (November 16, 2005) (``Second
Review'') and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago
were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to the NV, as
described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices
for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter
outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP
for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with
the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made
the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of
the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the
applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to
reflect discounts and increased the prices to reflect billing
adjustments.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland
freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance,
survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses
from arrival to delivery.
For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty,
and further manufacturing). In addition, we deducted indirect selling
expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These
expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by
affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for
profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Furthermore, we recalculated MSNA's credit expense and inventory
carrying costs as we did in the final results of the first and second
administrative reviews. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 12648 (March 15, 2005) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Second Review and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared
Mittal's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Mittal had
an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.
sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market
was viable.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which
Mittal participated, the Department found that the respondent made
sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the
merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon
and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 39990, 39993
(July 12, 2005) and Second Review at 69512. Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
[[Page 65080]]
Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that Mittal made steel wire rod sales in Trinidad and Tobago at
prices below the cost of production (``COP'') in this administrative
review. As a result, we initiated a COP inquiry for Mittal.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), packing expenses, and
interest expense.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.''
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring
during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded
below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the
basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act. See Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Mittal, dated October
31, 2006, on file in the Central Records Unit, room B099 of the main
Department building, for our calculation methodology and results.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for
inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In
addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale (``COS'') pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense)
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly
linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to NV were claimed
or allowed.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average
costs.
D. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level-of-trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP
transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from
which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from
exporter to importer. For CEP transactions, it is the level of the
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
In the investigation and previous two reviews, Mittal reported
services similar to this review, such as strategic and economic
planning, sales forecasting, sales force development, solicitation of
orders, technical advice, price negotiation, processing purchase
orders, invoicing, extending credit, freight and delivery arrangements,
managing accounts receivable, and making arrangements for warranties
related to sales. In the final results of the second review, we noted
that in our LOT analysis for CEP sales we only consider the selling
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of the expenses
incurred for the U.S. economic activity and the record indicates that
for Mittal's CEP sales there are substantially fewer services performed
than the sales in its home market. Therefore, we determined that
Mittal's home market sales were made at a more advanced stage of the
marketing process than the CEP sales to the affiliates and therefore
are at a different LOT within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.412. For the
final results of the second review, we explained in Comment 3 that we
disagreed with Mittal's characterization of the level of activity
reported for certain services, but on balance we agreed with Mittal's
CEP offset claim. See Second Review and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
In analyzing this issue in this review, we obtained information
from Mittal about the marketing stages involved in the reported U.S.
and home market sales, including a description of the selling
activities performed by Mittal for each channel of distribution. In
identifying LOTs for EP and home market sales, we considered the
selling functions reflected in the starting price before any
adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses pursuant to
section 772(d) of the Act.
In the home market, Mittal reported sales to end-users as its only
channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, Mittal reported sales
through two channels of distribution, one involving sales made directly
by Mittal to an unaffiliated
[[Page 65081]]
trading company, and the second involving sales made by Mittal's
affiliated U.S. resellers to trading companies, OEMs, distributors, and
end-users. We have determined that the sales made by Mittal directly to
U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by Mittal's affiliated U.S.
resellers constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have found that U.S.
sales and home market sales were made at the same LOT, whereas in the
previous review we found that there were more selling functions with a
greater level of activity in the home market. Accordingly, we did not
find it necessary to make a LOT adjustment or CEP offset. For further
explanation of our LOT analysis see the Preliminary Sales Calculation
Memorandum for Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited from Dennis McClure and
Stephanie Moore to the file dated October 31, 2006.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales, as
obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October
1, 2004, through September 30, 2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited.................... 0.06[percnt]
(i.e., de minimis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any
such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, within
120 days of publication of these preliminary results. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rate
The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the
subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this
administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates
calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above
0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions
directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by
applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise.
For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment
rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins
for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the
total entered value of the sales to that importer. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date
of publication of the 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) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included
in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did
not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a
reseller, trading company, or exporter) 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 intermediary
involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full
discussion of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that
company's sales during the review period.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
company listed above will be the rate established in the final results
of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and,
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer
or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value
(``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for
the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 11.40
percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
See Wire Rod Orders.
These cash 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 increase the
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of
antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
[[Page 65082]]
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
