Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65077-65082 [E6-18784]

Download as PDF 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