Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71523-71530 [E6-20923]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 2006 / Notices by Taifeng, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC–wide rate (i.e., 376.67 percent); and (3) for subject merchandise exported by Qingdao Camel, Qingdao Saturn, QXF, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple, but manufactured by any other party, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate (i.e., 376.67 percent). Further, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by Dongyun, Sunny, Trans–High, and Shanyang Freezing, the cash–deposit rate will be that established in these final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, FHTK, Ever–Best, Hongda, Linshu Dading Ziyang and Ever–Rich, the cash– deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, including Qingyuan, which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate of 376.67 percent; (4) for all non–PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash–deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES 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. This administrative review, the new shipper reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(g), 351.214(h) and 352.221(b)(4) of the Department’s regulations. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:15 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 Dated: November 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–21011 Filed 12–8–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–421–807 Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Nucor Corporation, Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (Mittal) and United States Steel Corporation (USS) (collectively, petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products (hot–rolled steel) from the Netherlands. This administrative review covers imports of subject merchandise from Corus Staal BV (Corus Staal). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that sales of hot–rolled steel from the Netherlands in the United States have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. AGENCY: December 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell or Robert James, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–0408 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. EFFECTIVE DATE: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71523 Background On November 29, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on hot–rolled steel from the Netherlands. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands, 66 FR 59565 (November 29, 2001). Subsequently, on December 23, 2003, the order was amended. See Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands, 68 FR 74214 (December 23, 2003). On November 1, 2005, the Department published the opportunity to request administrative review of, inter alia, hot– rolled steel from the Netherlands for the period November 1, 2004 through October 31, 2005. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 65883 (November 1, 2005). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on November 30, 2005, petitioners requested that we conduct an administrative review of sales of the subject merchandise made by Corus Staal, a producer and exporter of the subject merchandise.1 On December 22, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 76024 (December 22, 2005). On January 3, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Corus Staal. Corus Staal submitted its response to sections A B, C, D, and E of the questionnaire on February 9, 2006. On January 23, 2006, USS requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed during the period of review by the respondent Corus Staal. On January 24, 2006, the Department issued a letter inviting Corus Staal to submit on the record evidence that unaffiliated purchasers will pay the antidumping duties that may be assessed on entries during the period of review. On February 9, 2006, Corus Staal submitted its response to the Department’s letter. On January 31, 2006, Corus Staal requested the Department to excuse certain affiliates, Corus Vlietjonge BV, Ijzerleeuw BV and Multisteel, from reporting home market sales. On August 1, 2006, the Department granted Corus’s 1 Nucor, Mittal Steel USA, and United States Steel Corporation each submitted a separate request for review. E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES 71524 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 2006 / Notices request not to report downstream home market sales by these three companies. On April 7, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A, B and C questionnaire, to which Corus Staal responded on April 28, 2006. On May 4, 2006, the Department issued a section D supplemental questionnaire. Corus Staal responded on May 25, 2006. On June 16, USS submitted comments on Corus Staal’s April 7, 2006, response. On June 27, 2006, the Department issued a second section A, B and C supplemental questionnaire and on June 28, 2006 the Department issued a section D supplemental. Corus Staal filed a response to these supplementals on July 14, 2006. On June 30, 2006, Corus Staal filed quantity and value reconciliations as requested in section A of the questionnaire and on July 25, 2006, Corus Staal filed its 2005 annual report. On September 8, 2006 and September 27, 2006, Corus filed its responses to the Department’s third and fourth section D supplemental questionnaires, which the Department had issued on August 14, 2006, and September 6, 2006. Mittal provided comments on the section D supplemental questionnaires on June 29, August 11, August 18, September 27 and October 20, 2006. On March 6, 2006, Mittal filed comments concerning Corus’s utilization of simplified reporting for the merchandise further manufactured by its U.S. affiliates, Thomas Steel Strip (Thomas Steel) and Hille & Mueller USA, Inc. (HMU). On March 13, 2006, Corus responded to Mittal’s request that the Department require Corus to supply a section E response for these sales. On March 22, March 27, April 7, April 28, May 12, May 16, May 17, May 22 and May 24, 2006, both Mittal and Corus made numerous submissions on this topic, each of which is reviewed in the Department’s June 15, 2006, memorandum to preliminarily accept Corus’s simplified reporting for Thomas Steel and HMU in this segment of the proceeding. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Office Director 7 from David Cordell, Case Analyst, and Robert James, Program Manager, regarding Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands: ‘‘Simplified Reporting’’ and Value Added in the United States by Thomas Steel, dated June 15, 2006. On June 23, 2006, Mittal responded to the Department’s preliminary decision to accept Corus’s ‘‘simplified reporting,’’ arguing that the law precludes the Department from relying on the dumping margin to be determined for imports of Corus’s non–furthermanufactured imports as a reasonable VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:15 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 surrogate for the dumping margin for its further–manufactured imports. On August 14, 2006, Mittal submitted further comments on this issue. Mittal reiterated its contentions concerning Corus Staal’s simplified reporting and went on to argue that there is not substantial evidence on the record to show the value added in the United States by Thomas Steel and HMU exceeds substantially the value of the imported subject merchandise. On August 23, 2006, Corus responded to Mittal’s comments, rebutting Mittal’s arguments about the value added in the United States. According to Corus, Mittal has raised no new issues, Corus has reported its value added data in a manner consistent with the Department’s reporting methodologies, and the value added on Corus’s sales of steel that is further manufactured in the United States exceeds the statutory and regulatory standards for relying on simplified reporting. On October 20, 2006, Mittal submitted comments in response to Corus’s fourth supplemental section D questionnaire. Mittal asked the Department to obtain additional information from Corus on the steel produced by the conventional hot–rolling plant (HRM) and steel produced in a Direct Sheet Plant (DSP). The Department addresses this issue in section E of the NV section of this Notice: Price–to-Price Comparisons, below. On November 13, 2006, Mittal submitted pre–preliminary determination comments to which Corus Staal responded on November 21, 2006. Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on July 12, 2006, we published in the Federal Register our notice of extension of time limit for this review. See Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Extension of Time Limit, 71 FR 39304 (July 12, 2006). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as November 30, 2006. Period of Review The POR is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. Scope of the Review For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non–metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 millimeters (mm) and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat– rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this review. Specifically included within the scope of this order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial– free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro–alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro–alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro–alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot–rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 2006 / Notices • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTS. • Silico–manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS Abrasion–resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non–rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot–rolled flat– rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:15 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 Affiliated–Party Sales During the POR, Corus Staal sold the foreign like product to several affiliated resellers in the home market. These include Namascor BV (Namascor), a service center wholly owned by Corus Staal, and Laura Metaal Holding BV (Laura), a manufacturer and service center in which Corus Staal’s parent company, Corus Nederland BV, has a shareholder interest. For purposes of our analysis, we utilized Namascor’s and Laura’s sales to unaffiliated customers and, where Laura consumed the subject merchandise purchased from Corus Staal in its manufacturing operations, we utilized Corus Staal’s sales to Laura. In addition, Corus Staal sold the foreign like product to affiliated companies Corus Vlietjonge BV (Vlietjonge),2 a service center, Ijzerleeuw BV (Ijzerleeuw) and Multisteel. Vlietjonge is affiliated with Corus Staal through the former British Steel companies, whose parent, British Steel PLC, merged with Koninklijke Hoogovens NV (now Corus Nederland BV) in October 1999 to form the Corus Group PLC. Vlietjonge has a financial interest in Ijzerleeuw, but has no reported management or operational control over Ijzerleeuw. Multisteel is a business unit of Corus Service Center Maastricht, which is a steel service center that Corus states almost exclusively sells cold–rolled steel products. In a letter dated January 31, 2006, Corus Staal requested an exemption from reporting downstream sales by Vlietjonge, Ijzerleeuw and Multisteel because of the nature and quantity of the products sold. On August 1, 2006, the Department excused Corus Staal from reporting downstream sales by Vlietjonge, Ijzerleeuw and Multisteel because of the reasons set out in the Department’s letter to Corus Staal, dated August 1, 2006. See Letter from Robert James, Program Manager, to Corus Staal dated August 1, 2006. Therefore, we have used Corus Staal’s home market sales to Vlietjonge, Ijzerleeuw and Multisteel and applied our arm’s–length test to these sales. In the U.S. market, Corus Staal sold subject merchandise to Thomas Steel, a further manufacturer of battery–quality hot band steel, who in turn also shipped a small portion of this material to HMU, after further processing the product. Thomas Steel is wholly owned by Corus USA Inc., which in turn is wholly owned by Corus Staal’s parent company, Corus Nederland BV. Claiming the value–added in the United 2 Namascor also resold some of the foreign like product to Vlietjonge. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71525 States by Thomas Steel exceeded substantially the value of the subject merchandise as imported, Corus Staal utilized the ‘‘simplified reporting’’ option for the merchandise further processed by Thomas Steel. Pursuant to section 772(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), when the subject merchandise is imported by an affiliated person and the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we will determine the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other subject merchandise, if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate. If there is not a sufficient quantity of such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other reasonable basis to determine the CEP. See, e.g., Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico, 67 FR 57379, 57381 (September 10, 2002) (unchanged for final results, 68 FR 1816 (January 14, 2003)). Consistent with the Department’s regulations, we have determined for these preliminary results that the estimated value added in the United States by Thomas Steel accounted for at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold in the United States, and therefore, the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. We have also preliminarily determined there is a sufficient quantity of sales remaining to provide a reasonable basis for comparison. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Office Director 7 from David Cordell, Case Analyst, and Robert James, Program Manager, regarding ‘‘Simplified Reporting’’ and Value Added in the United States by Thomas Steel,’’ dated June 15, 2006. Duty Absorption On January 23, 2006, USS requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR by the respondent. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if requested, to determine, during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. Because Corus Staal BV sold E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES 71526 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 2006 / Notices to unaffiliated customers in the United States through itself as the importer of record, and because this review was initiated four years after the publication of the order, we have made a duty absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding in accordance with section 751(a)(4) of the Act. In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by the respondent during the POR, we presume the duties will be absorbed for those sales that have been made at less than NV. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence (e.g., an agreement between the affiliated importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind, 70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 2005). On January 24, 2006, the Department invited evidence from Corus Staal to demonstrate that its U.S. purchasers will pay any antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries during the POR. In its response, submitted on February 9, 2006, Corus Staal argued that the Department’s decision to initiate a duty absorption inquiry is contrary to law as Corus Staal is both the producer and exporter and cannot be affiliated with itself as the importer. Furthermore, Corus Staal argued that the evidence it has submitted shows Corus Staal ‘‘passes along, and its unaffiliated U.S. customers pay, the costs associated with antidumping duties on subject merchandise.’’ Corus Staal claims it has negotiated terms with its customers intending to pass dumping duties on to its customers. Corus, however, concedes that ‘‘these provisions do not allow for the retroactive collection of any additional antidumping duties ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise.’’ See Corus Staal’s response dated February 9, 2006 at page 9. Furthermore, Corus Staal failed to provide an agreement between Corus Staal and its unaffiliated purchaser stating the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. With respect to Corus’s claim that Corus Staal is both the producer and exporter and cannot be affiliated with itself as the importer, the Department notes that the Court of International Trade (CIT) addressed this issue when it decided ‘‘Commerce’s interpretation of ’affiliated’ to include exporters importing through themselves has been found to be a permissible VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:15 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 construction of the statute.’’ See Corus Staal BV v. United States, Slip Op. 06– 112 at note 10 (CIT July 25, 2006) citing Agro Dutch Indus., Ltd. v. United States, Slip. Op. 06–40, 2006 WL 785463 at 13 (CIT March 28, 2006) in which the CIT stated: Commerce’s interpretation of subsection 1675(a)(4) appears to be a reasonable, common–sense solution to what Congress attempted to accomplish with its enactment. This conclusion is inherent from the statute’s focus– upon duty absorption in the foreign producer or exporter–and therefore even if the meaning of ‘‘affiliate’’ were clear, and resort to legislative history unnecessary, to find that the statute does not address the circumstance of the foreign producer or exporter itself acting as the importer of record would result in an apparent absurdity. Therefore, because Corus Staal did not rebut the duty absorption presumption with evidence that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Corus Staal on all U.S. sales made through its importer of record, namely Corus Staal. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of hot– rolled steel from the Netherlands to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price and Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted– average NVs. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondent, covered by the descriptions in the ‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this notice, to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of hot–rolled steel from the Netherlands. We have relied on the following 11 criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: whether painted or not, quality, carbon content level, yield strength, thickness, width, whether coil or cut–to-length sheet, whether temper rolled or not, whether pickled or not, whether mill or trimmed PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 edge, and whether the steel is rolled with or without patterns in relief. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department’s, January 3, 2006, questionnaire. Export Price and Constructed Export Price Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).’’ Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d).’’ Corus Staal reported each of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise as EP transactions. However, after reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined, as we did in the 2002–2003 review, that certain of Corus Staal’s reported EP transactions are properly classified as CEP sales because these sales occurred after importation. This determination is consistent with section 772(c) and (d) of the Act. During the POR, Corus Staal executed all agreements with U.S. customers, and amendments related to those agreements, in the Netherlands. See Corus Staal’s February 9, 2006, questionnaire response (February 9, 2006 QR) at 23, note 18. In addition, Corus Staal also served as the importer of record for these sales of subject merchandise entered during the POR. However, in the case of ‘‘just in time’’ (JIT) sales to one unaffiliated customer, the invoice was issued after the subject merchandise had entered the United States. In its response to the Department’s section C questionnaire, dated February 9, 2006, Corus Staal stated that due to a cancellation by the JIT customer, Corus found it necessary to sell certain steel to another customer in the United States. In exhibit C–26 of its April 28, 2006, supplemental response, Corus provided both the E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 2006 / Notices invoices and the frame agreements governing this transaction. Because Corus and its unaffiliated customer did not agree on the price and quantity terms until the invoice was issued, the JIT sales fail to meet the criteria for EP sales which arise where the ‘‘the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported into the United States.’’ See the Department’s January 4, 2006, Questionnaire at I–7. Additionally, we do not agree with Corus Staal’s claim that the relevant frame agreement governs the sale between the JIT customer and Corus, because, as the aforementioned JIT sale demonstrates, an order was cancelled after importation and sold to another customer in the United States. Furthermore, in this review, Corus Staal has maintained it is upon invoicing ‘‘that the final quantity, price and product sold are ultimately determined.’’ See Corus Staal’s February 9, 2006, QR at C–19. Corus Staal further argues ‘‘ until this point, both the customer and Corus can and do make changes that affect the price and quantity of the product shipped and/or the product supplied. Therefore, there is no date other than the invoice date that better reflects the time at which the material terms of a transaction are fixed.’’ Id. at C–20. Furthermore, Corus reiterated its position in its supplemental response when it stated ‘‘for the POR, use of invoice date most accurately reflects commercial reality as to the time that the sale took place and at which the material terms of sale become final and fixed. Use of any earlier date would ignore the many subsequent changes in terms prior to invoicing and shipping.’’ See Corus Staal’s April 28, 2006, SQR at 21. Thus, Corus Staal’s responses indicate that the invoice date is the appropriate date to use in determining when a sale or agreement of sale first occurs, as changes often do occur between the frame agreement and the date of invoice. See Corus Staal’s April 28, 2006 SQR at 21. Therefore, the Department does not find that the frame agreement is the governing document in determining when a sale is agreed upon or when it is executed. The statute defines EP sales as those where the goods are ‘‘first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation’’ and because the material terms of sale are fixed in the invoice, which is issued by Corus after importation, it is clear that in the case of the JIT sales, the sales do not meet the criterion of having been made before importation. Furthermore, the CIT recently decided this issue in the second administrative VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:15 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 review of this proceeding when it held that: turning to the application of the law to the facts of this case, Commerce properly applied the definition of ’sold (or agreed to be sold)’ to the case at hand. As the material terms of the sale or agreement to sell were not fixed until the final invoice, Commerce could properly conclude that the final invoices determined when a sale or agreement to sell first occurred. It follows that the sale or agreement to sell occurred after importation in the United States. Therefore, Commerce correctly classified the JIT transactions as CEP transactions pursuant to 19 U.S.C.§ 1677a(a) and (b). See Corus Staal BV v. United States, Slip Op. 06–112 at 20 (Corus Staal) (CIT July 25, 2006). In accordance with the CIT’s recent decision in Corus Staal, the Department has preliminarily determined the sales classified as JIT sales should continue to be reclassified as CEP sales for the purposes of this review. The price and quantity were not fixed until the invoice to the U.S. customer was issued as evidenced in the example of one order to the JIT customer, which was cancelled after importation and where such goods were then resold to another U.S. customer. Furthermore, the goods in JIT inventory are physically in the United States when the invoices containing the fixed price and quantity terms to the unaffiliated customers are issued. The Department determines such sales are CEP sales because section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.’’ EP sales are clearly defined as taking place ‘‘before the date of importation’’ whereas CEP sales are defined as taking place ‘‘before or after the date of importation’’. With respect to the remainder of Corus Staal’s reported EP sales (i.e., those sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers made between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005), we have continued to classify these as EP transactions because the contracts governing these sales were signed by Corus Staal in the Netherlands, and because such sales were invoiced before importation. For those sales which we are classifying as EP transactions, we calculated EP in accordance with PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71527 section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on the packed, delivered, duty paid prices for export to end users and service centers in the U.S. market. We adjusted gross unit price for billing errors, freight revenue, and early payment discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses. For CEP sales, we calculated price in conformity with section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, delivered, duty paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where applicable, we made adjustments to gross unit price for billing errors, freight revenue, and early payment discounts. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit, warranty, etc.), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Level of Trade 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/CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting price of the comparison sales in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer, after adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP/CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES 71528 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 2006 / Notices distribution between the producer and the 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 at different levels of trade in the home country, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and CEP sales affect price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (i.e., the CEP offset provision). In implementing these principles in the instant review, we obtained information from Corus Staal about the marketing stages involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Corus Staal and the level to which each selling activity was performed for each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs for U.S. CEP sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price after any adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act. In the home market, Corus Staal reported two channels of distribution (sales by Corus Staal and sales through its affiliated service centers Namascor and Laura) and three customer categories (end users, steel service centers, and trading companies). See, e.g., Corus Staal’s February 9, 2006, QR at A–21. For both channels of distribution in the home market, Corus Staal performed similar selling functions, including strategic and economic planning, advertising, freight and delivery arrangements, technical/ warranty services, and sales logistics support. The remaining selling activities performed did not differ significantly by channel of distribution, with the exception of market research and research and development activities, which were performed only by Corus Staal. See Corus Staal’s February 9, 2006, QR at Exhibit A–8 and pages A– 21 through A–44. Because the selling activities among the channels of distribution are sufficiently similar, we find that one LOT exists for Corus Staal’s home market sales. In the U.S. market, Corus Staal reported a single channel of distribution for its sales of subject merchandise during the POR. For EP sales made directly to U.S. customers, Corus Staal reported two customer categories, end users and steel service centers. See, e.g., Corus Staal’s February 9, 2006, QR at A– 23. Corus noted that it shipped subject merchandise to one affiliated customer VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:15 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 in the United States, Thomas Steel, which in turn shipped a small portion of this material, after further processing, to HMU. See Id. at A–24. However, as explained elsewhere in this notice, Thomas Steel and HMU provided data in simplified reporting format and thus detailed information was not provided on Thomas Steel’s sales activities. Corus notes that it treats Thomas Steel in the same manner as all unaffiliated U.S. customers for all purposes. See Id. at A– 44. As noted in the ‘‘Export Price and Constructed Export Price’’ section of this notice, we have preliminarily determined that certain of Corus Staal’s reported EP transactions (i.e., sales where invoicing took place after date of entry) are properly classified as CEP sales. As to these Corus Staal sales to customers in the United States which we have reclassified as CEP transactions, we considered whether such sales were made at the same level of trade. Comparing the selling activities performed and services offered by Corus Staal on its CEP sales to customers in the United States to those activities performed on its home market sales, we found there to be few differences in the selling functions performed by Corus Staal on its sales to customers in the United States and those performed for sales in the home market. For example, on sales to both home market customers and to U.S. customers, Corus Staal provided similar strategic and economic planning, freight and delivery services, technical/warranty assistance, research and development, and sales logistics support. See, e.g., Corus Staal’s February 9, 2006, QR at pages A–22 through A–60. As a result, we preliminarily find that there is not a significant difference in selling functions performed in the U.S. and home markets on these sales. Thus, for those sales which we have preliminarily determined are CEP sales, we find that Corus Staal’s home market sales and sales to customers in the United States were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, no LOT adjustment or CEP offset adjustment to NV is warranted for these CEP sales. Finally, for those sales which we are continuing to classify as EP, we compared the selling activities performed and services offered by Corus Staal on its sales to unaffiliated customers in the United States to those activities performed on its home market sales, we found there to be few differences in the selling functions performed by Corus Staal. Thus, we find that Corus Staal’s home market sales and sales to unaffiliated customers in PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the United States were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, no LOT adjustment is necessary. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because the respondent’s aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. See, e.g., Corus Staal’s February 9, 2006 QR at Attachment A–2 and Corus Staal’s July 14, 2006 SQR at Attachment A–35. B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm’s–Length Test Corus Staal reported sales in the home market to affiliated resellers and end– users. Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm’s– length prices are excluded from our analysis because we consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b). Prior to performing the arm’s–length test on Corus Staal’s sales to affiliated customers, we aggregated multiple customer codes reported for individual affiliates in order to treat them as single entities. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 2002) (Modification to Affiliated Party Sales). To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm’s–length prices, we compared, on a model– specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all direct selling expenses, discounts and rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where prices to the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm’s length. See Modification to Affiliated Party Sales at 69187–88. In accordance with the Department’s practice, we only included in our margin analysis those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm’s length. E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 2006 / Notices C. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded sales of certain products made at prices below the cost of production (COP) in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the time of initiation of this review, i.e., the 2002–2003 review of hot–rolled steel from the Netherlands (see Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 18366 (April 11, 2005), we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Corus Staal made sales of the foreign like product at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Corus Staal. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted– average COP for each model based on the sum of Corus Staal’s material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP data reported by Corus Staal. For a list of the product characteristics considered in our analysis, see the section ‘‘Product Comparisons’’ above. We compared the weighted–average COP figures to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product–specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net of billing adjustments, freight revenue, certain minor processing expenses, discounts and rebates, and any applicable movement charges. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities and whether such sales were made at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent’s home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below–cost sales of that model because we determined that the below–cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of the respondent’s home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below–cost sales because: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in ‘‘substantial VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:15 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted–average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Our cost test for Corus Staal revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that for other models sold by Corus Staal, more than 20 percent of the home market sales of those models were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below–cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above–cost sales as the basis for determining NV. D. Constructed Value (CV) While in this preliminary determination no sales are compared to CV, we nevertheless calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We based CV on the sum of the Corus Staal’s material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV and weight–averaged the CVs reported for identical products produced in both the conventional hot– rolling mill and direct sheet plant as described above in the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the actual weighted–average home market direct and indirect selling expenses. E. Price–to-Price Comparisons We relied on our model match criteria in order to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product based on the reported physical characteristics of the subject merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the following characteristics and PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71529 reporting instructions listed in the Department’s questionnaire. These characteristics are: painted, quality, carbon, yield strength, thickness, width, cut–to-length vs coil, temper rolled, pickled, edge trim, and patterns in relief. See section 771(16) of the Act. As indicated earlier, on October 20, 2006, Mittal asked the Department to obtain additional information from Corus on products produced by the DSP mill and hot–rolled mill to ensure that the Department calculates the most accurate margin possible. However, the Department has already addressed this issue in the 2001–2002 administrative review of this case where the Department determined ‘‘because the information on the record does not establish sufficient differences in physical characteristics between conventional hot–rolled mill and DSP products, we have not made any changes to our model match criteria for these final results.’’ See Certain Hot– Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 18366 (April 11, 2005) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 1. The Department has no information on the record of this proceeding, other than Mittal’s October 20, 2006, submission, that would support the Department reexamining our model match criteria for this preliminary determination. We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm’s length. We adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, freight revenue, interest revenue and tolling revenues, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise (i.e., difmer) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses, warranty expenses, and credit insurance. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. F. Price–to-CV Comparisons In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV if we are unable to find a home market match of E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 71530 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 2006 / Notices Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 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 Notice of Policy Currency Conversion Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates (Assessment–Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Corus Staal in accordance with section 773A(a) of BVfor which Corus Staal BV did not the Act. know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading Preliminary Results of Review company, or exporter) was destined for As a result of our review, we the United States. In such instances, we preliminarily determine the weighted– will instruct CBP to liquidate average dumping margin for the period unreviewed entries at the 2.59 percent November 1, 2004, through October 31, all–others rate established in the 2005, to be as follows: original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, if there is no rate for the Manufacturer / Exporter Margin (percent) intermediary involved in the transaction. See the Assessment–Policy Corus Staal BV (Corus Notice for a full discussion of this Staal) ......................... 2.52 clarification. Furthermore, the following deposit The Department will disclose requirements will be effective upon calculations performed in connection completion of the final results of this with these preliminary results of review administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested date of the final results of this parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash after the date of publication of these deposit rate for the reviewed company preliminary results of review. Rebuttal will be the rate established in the final briefs and rebuttals to written results of the administrative review comments, limited to issues raised in (except that no deposit will be required the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less of publication of this notice. Parties who than 0.5 percent); (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the submit argument in these proceedings original LTFV investigation, but the are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the most a brief summary of the argument, and recent period for the manufacturer of (3) a table of authorities. An interested the merchandise; and (3) if neither the party may request a hearing within 30 exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm days of publication. See 19 CFR covered in this review, any previous 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the will be held 37 days after the date of cash deposit rate will be 2.59 percent, publication, or the first business day the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the thereafter, unless the Department alters LTFV investigation. See Antidumping the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Duty Order: Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon The Department will issue the final Steel Flat Products from the results of these preliminary results, Netherlands, 67 FR 59565 (November including the results of our analysis of 29, 2001). the issues raised in any such written This notice also serves as a comments or at a hearing, within 120 preliminary reminder to importers of days of publication of these preliminary their responsibility under 19 CFR results. 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES such or similar merchandise. Where appropriate, we make adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Where we compare CV to CEP, we deduct from CV the weighted– average home market direct selling expenses. However, in this review we have preliminarily found contemporaneous matches for all U.S. sales, and therefore, have not based NV on CV. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:15 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–20923 Filed 12–8–06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–475–828, A–557–809, A–565–801] Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the Commission) that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The Department is publishing notice of the continuation of these antidumping duty orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah L. Scott or Robert James, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 7, or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2657, 482–0649, or (202) 482–1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On January 3, 2006, the Department initiated and the Commission instituted E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 237 (Monday, December 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71523-71530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-421-807


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from Nucor Corporation, Mittal Steel 
USA ISG Inc. (Mittal) and United States Steel Corporation (USS) 
(collectively, petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled 
steel) from the Netherlands. This administrative review covers imports 
of subject merchandise from Corus Staal BV (Corus Staal). The period of 
review (POR) is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of hot-rolled steel from the 
Netherlands in the United States have been made below normal value 
(NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference 
between the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) and NV. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 
Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of 
the argument, and 3) a table of authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell or Robert James, 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 
(202) 482-0408 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 29, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. See Antidumping Duty 
Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
Netherlands, 66 FR 59565 (November 29, 2001). Subsequently, on December 
23, 2003, the order was amended. See Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty 
Order; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The 
Netherlands, 68 FR 74214 (December 23, 2003).
    On November 1, 2005, the Department published the opportunity to 
request administrative review of, inter alia, hot-rolled steel from the 
Netherlands for the period November 1, 2004 through October 31, 2005. 
See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 
65883 (November 1, 2005).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on November 30, 2005, 
petitioners requested that we conduct an administrative review of sales 
of the subject merchandise made by Corus Staal, a producer and exporter 
of the subject merchandise.\1\ On December 22, 2005, the Department 
published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review covering the period November 1, 
2004, through October 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 70 FR 76024 (December 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Nucor, Mittal Steel USA, and United States Steel Corporation 
each submitted a separate request for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 3, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Corus Staal. Corus Staal submitted its response to 
sections A B, C, D, and E of the questionnaire on February 9, 2006.
    On January 23, 2006, USS requested that the Department determine 
whether antidumping duties have been absorbed during the period of 
review by the respondent Corus Staal. On January 24, 2006, the 
Department issued a letter inviting Corus Staal to submit on the record 
evidence that unaffiliated purchasers will pay the antidumping duties 
that may be assessed on entries during the period of review. On 
February 9, 2006, Corus Staal submitted its response to the 
Department's letter.
    On January 31, 2006, Corus Staal requested the Department to excuse 
certain affiliates, Corus Vlietjonge BV, Ijzerleeuw BV and Multisteel, 
from reporting home market sales. On August 1, 2006, the Department 
granted Corus's

[[Page 71524]]

request not to report downstream home market sales by these three 
companies.
    On April 7, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A, B 
and C questionnaire, to which Corus Staal responded on April 28, 2006. 
On May 4, 2006, the Department issued a section D supplemental 
questionnaire. Corus Staal responded on May 25, 2006. On June 16, USS 
submitted comments on Corus Staal's April 7, 2006, response. On June 
27, 2006, the Department issued a second section A, B and C 
supplemental questionnaire and on June 28, 2006 the Department issued a 
section D supplemental. Corus Staal filed a response to these 
supplementals on July 14, 2006. On June 30, 2006, Corus Staal filed 
quantity and value reconciliations as requested in section A of the 
questionnaire and on July 25, 2006, Corus Staal filed its 2005 annual 
report. On September 8, 2006 and September 27, 2006, Corus filed its 
responses to the Department's third and fourth section D supplemental 
questionnaires, which the Department had issued on August 14, 2006, and 
September 6, 2006. Mittal provided comments on the section D 
supplemental questionnaires on June 29, August 11, August 18, September 
27 and October 20, 2006.
    On March 6, 2006, Mittal filed comments concerning Corus's 
utilization of simplified reporting for the merchandise further 
manufactured by its U.S. affiliates, Thomas Steel Strip (Thomas Steel) 
and Hille & Mueller USA, Inc. (HMU). On March 13, 2006, Corus responded 
to Mittal's request that the Department require Corus to supply a 
section E response for these sales. On March 22, March 27, April 7, 
April 28, May 12, May 16, May 17, May 22 and May 24, 2006, both Mittal 
and Corus made numerous submissions on this topic, each of which is 
reviewed in the Department's June 15, 2006, memorandum to preliminarily 
accept Corus's simplified reporting for Thomas Steel and HMU in this 
segment of the proceeding. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Office 
Director 7 from David Cordell, Case Analyst, and Robert James, Program 
Manager, regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
the Netherlands: ``Simplified Reporting'' and Value Added in the United 
States by Thomas Steel, dated June 15, 2006. On June 23, 2006, Mittal 
responded to the Department's preliminary decision to accept Corus's 
``simplified reporting,'' arguing that the law precludes the Department 
from relying on the dumping margin to be determined for imports of 
Corus's non-further-manufactured imports as a reasonable surrogate for 
the dumping margin for its further-manufactured imports. On August 14, 
2006, Mittal submitted further comments on this issue. Mittal 
reiterated its contentions concerning Corus Staal's simplified 
reporting and went on to argue that there is not substantial evidence 
on the record to show the value added in the United States by Thomas 
Steel and HMU exceeds substantially the value of the imported subject 
merchandise. On August 23, 2006, Corus responded to Mittal's comments, 
rebutting Mittal's arguments about the value added in the United 
States. According to Corus, Mittal has raised no new issues, Corus has 
reported its value added data in a manner consistent with the 
Department's reporting methodologies, and the value added on Corus's 
sales of steel that is further manufactured in the United States 
exceeds the statutory and regulatory standards for relying on 
simplified reporting.
    On October 20, 2006, Mittal submitted comments in response to 
Corus's fourth supplemental section D questionnaire. Mittal asked the 
Department to obtain additional information from Corus on the steel 
produced by the conventional hot-rolling plant (HRM) and steel produced 
in a Direct Sheet Plant (DSP). The Department addresses this issue in 
section E of the NV section of this Notice: Price-to-Price Comparisons, 
below. On November 13, 2006, Mittal submitted pre-preliminary 
determination comments to which Corus Staal responded on November 21, 
2006.
    Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the 
normal time frame, on July 12, 2006, we published in the Federal 
Register our notice of extension of time limit for this review. See 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Extension of Time Limit, 71 FR 
39304 (July 12, 2006). This extension established the deadline for 
these preliminary results as November 30, 2006.

Period of Review

    The POR is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 
0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and 
whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other 
non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively 
superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, 
of a thickness of less than 4.75 millimeters (mm) and of a width 
measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., 
flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 
width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness 
of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) 
of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of 
this review. Specifically included within the scope of this order are 
vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as 
interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, 
and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized 
as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as 
titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, 
added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are 
recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as 
chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for 
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such 
as silicon and aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, 
regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by 
weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon 
content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
    1.80 percent of manganese, or
    2.25 percent of silicon, or
    1.00 percent of copper, or
    0.50 percent of aluminum, or
    1.25 percent of chromium, or
    0.30 percent of cobalt, or
    0.40 percent of lead, or
    1.25 percent of nickel, or
    0.30 percent of tungsten, or
    0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
    0.10 percent of niobium, or
    0.15 percent of vanadium, or
    0.15 percent of zirconium.
    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).

[[Page 71525]]

     Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and 
Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTS.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTS at 
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon 
steel flat products covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed 
fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor 
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Affiliated-Party Sales

    During the POR, Corus Staal sold the foreign like product to 
several affiliated resellers in the home market. These include Namascor 
BV (Namascor), a service center wholly owned by Corus Staal, and Laura 
Metaal Holding BV (Laura), a manufacturer and service center in which 
Corus Staal's parent company, Corus Nederland BV, has a shareholder 
interest. For purposes of our analysis, we utilized Namascor's and 
Laura's sales to unaffiliated customers and, where Laura consumed the 
subject merchandise purchased from Corus Staal in its manufacturing 
operations, we utilized Corus Staal's sales to Laura. In addition, 
Corus Staal sold the foreign like product to affiliated companies Corus 
Vlietjonge BV (Vlietjonge),\2\ a service center, Ijzerleeuw BV 
(Ijzerleeuw) and Multisteel. Vlietjonge is affiliated with Corus Staal 
through the former British Steel companies, whose parent, British Steel 
PLC, merged with Koninklijke Hoogovens NV (now Corus Nederland BV) in 
October 1999 to form the Corus Group PLC. Vlietjonge has a financial 
interest in Ijzerleeuw, but has no reported management or operational 
control over Ijzerleeuw. Multisteel is a business unit of Corus Service 
Center Maastricht, which is a steel service center that Corus states 
almost exclusively sells cold-rolled steel products. In a letter dated 
January 31, 2006, Corus Staal requested an exemption from reporting 
downstream sales by Vlietjonge, Ijzerleeuw and Multisteel because of 
the nature and quantity of the products sold. On August 1, 2006, the 
Department excused Corus Staal from reporting downstream sales by 
Vlietjonge, Ijzerleeuw and Multisteel because of the reasons set out in 
the Department's letter to Corus Staal, dated August 1, 2006. See 
Letter from Robert James, Program Manager, to Corus Staal dated August 
1, 2006. Therefore, we have used Corus Staal's home market sales to 
Vlietjonge, Ijzerleeuw and Multisteel and applied our arm's-length test 
to these sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Namascor also resold some of the foreign like product to 
Vlietjonge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the U.S. market, Corus Staal sold subject merchandise to Thomas 
Steel, a further manufacturer of battery-quality hot band steel, who in 
turn also shipped a small portion of this material to HMU, after 
further processing the product. Thomas Steel is wholly owned by Corus 
USA Inc., which in turn is wholly owned by Corus Staal's parent 
company, Corus Nederland BV. Claiming the value-added in the United 
States by Thomas Steel exceeded substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise as imported, Corus Staal utilized the ``simplified 
reporting'' option for the merchandise further processed by Thomas 
Steel.
    Pursuant to section 772(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), when the subject merchandise is imported by an affiliated 
person and the value added in the United States by the affiliated 
person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject 
merchandise, we will determine the CEP for such merchandise using the 
price of identical or other subject merchandise, if there is a 
sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for 
comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate. 
If there is not a sufficient quantity of such sales or if we determine 
that using the price of identical or other subject merchandise is not 
appropriate, we may use any other reasonable basis to determine the 
CEP. See, e.g., Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Gray Portland Cement and 
Clinker From Mexico, 67 FR 57379, 57381 (September 10, 2002) (unchanged 
for final results, 68 FR 1816 (January 14, 2003)). Consistent with the 
Department's regulations, we have determined for these preliminary 
results that the estimated value added in the United States by Thomas 
Steel accounted for at least 65 percent of the price charged to the 
first unaffiliated customer for the merchandise as sold in the United 
States, and therefore, the value added is likely to exceed 
substantially the value of the subject merchandise. We have also 
preliminarily determined there is a sufficient quantity of sales 
remaining to provide a reasonable basis for comparison. See Memorandum 
to Richard Weible, Office Director 7 from David Cordell, Case Analyst, 
and Robert James, Program Manager, regarding ``Simplified Reporting'' 
and Value Added in the United States by Thomas Steel,'' dated June 15, 
2006.

Duty Absorption

    On January 23, 2006, USS requested that the Department determine 
whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR by the 
respondent. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, 
if requested, to determine, during an administrative review initiated 
two or four years after the publication of the order, whether 
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or 
exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an affiliated importer. Because Corus Staal BV sold

[[Page 71526]]

to unaffiliated customers in the United States through itself as the 
importer of record, and because this review was initiated four years 
after the publication of the order, we have made a duty absorption 
determination in this segment of the proceeding in accordance with 
section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
    In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by 
the respondent during the POR, we presume the duties will be absorbed 
for those sales that have been made at less than NV. This presumption 
can be rebutted with evidence (e.g., an agreement between the 
affiliated importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated 
purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject 
merchandise. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 
from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind, 70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 
2005). On January 24, 2006, the Department invited evidence from Corus 
Staal to demonstrate that its U.S. purchasers will pay any antidumping 
duties ultimately assessed on entries during the POR. In its response, 
submitted on February 9, 2006, Corus Staal argued that the Department's 
decision to initiate a duty absorption inquiry is contrary to law as 
Corus Staal is both the producer and exporter and cannot be affiliated 
with itself as the importer. Furthermore, Corus Staal argued that the 
evidence it has submitted shows Corus Staal ``passes along, and its 
unaffiliated U.S. customers pay, the costs associated with antidumping 
duties on subject merchandise.''
    Corus Staal claims it has negotiated terms with its customers 
intending to pass dumping duties on to its customers. Corus, however, 
concedes that ``these provisions do not allow for the retroactive 
collection of any additional antidumping duties ultimately assessed on 
the subject merchandise.'' See Corus Staal's response dated February 9, 
2006 at page 9. Furthermore, Corus Staal failed to provide an agreement 
between Corus Staal and its unaffiliated purchaser stating the 
unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on 
the subject merchandise. With respect to Corus's claim that Corus Staal 
is both the producer and exporter and cannot be affiliated with itself 
as the importer, the Department notes that the Court of International 
Trade (CIT) addressed this issue when it decided ``Commerce's 
interpretation of 'affiliated' to include exporters importing through 
themselves has been found to be a permissible construction of the 
statute.'' See Corus Staal BV v. United States, Slip Op. 06-112 at note 
10 (CIT July 25, 2006) citing Agro Dutch Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 
Slip. Op. 06-40, 2006 WL 785463 at 13 (CIT March 28, 2006) in which the 
CIT stated:
    Commerce's interpretation of subsection 1675(a)(4) appears to be a 
reasonable, common-sense solution to what Congress attempted to 
accomplish with its enactment. This conclusion is inherent from the 
statute's focus-upon duty absorption in the foreign producer or 
exporter-and therefore even if the meaning of ``affiliate'' were clear, 
and resort to legislative history unnecessary, to find that the statute 
does not address the circumstance of the foreign producer or exporter 
itself acting as the importer of record would result in an apparent 
absurdity.
    Therefore, because Corus Staal did not rebut the duty absorption 
presumption with evidence that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the 
full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise, we 
preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Corus 
Staal on all U.S. sales made through its importer of record, namely 
Corus Staal.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands 
to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the 
EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed 
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs and 
CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent, covered by the descriptions in the 
``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, to be foreign like 
products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons 
to U.S. sales of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands.
    We have relied on the following 11 criteria to match U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like 
product: whether painted or not, quality, carbon content level, yield 
strength, thickness, width, whether coil or cut-to-length sheet, 
whether temper rolled or not, whether pickled or not, whether mill or 
trimmed edge, and whether the steel is rolled with or without patterns 
in relief.
    Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home 
market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next 
most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics 
and reporting instructions listed in the Department's, January 3, 2006, 
questionnaire.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).'' Section 772(b) 
of the Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the subject merchandise 
is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or 
after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer 
or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d).''
    Corus Staal reported each of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
as EP transactions. However, after reviewing the evidence on the record 
of this review, we have preliminarily determined, as we did in the 
2002-2003 review, that certain of Corus Staal's reported EP 
transactions are properly classified as CEP sales because these sales 
occurred after importation. This determination is consistent with 
section 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    During the POR, Corus Staal executed all agreements with U.S. 
customers, and amendments related to those agreements, in the 
Netherlands. See Corus Staal's February 9, 2006, questionnaire response 
(February 9, 2006 QR) at 23, note 18. In addition, Corus Staal also 
served as the importer of record for these sales of subject merchandise 
entered during the POR.
    However, in the case of ``just in time'' (JIT) sales to one 
unaffiliated customer, the invoice was issued after the subject 
merchandise had entered the United States. In its response to the 
Department's section C questionnaire, dated February 9, 2006, Corus 
Staal stated that due to a cancellation by the JIT customer, Corus 
found it necessary to sell certain steel to another customer in the 
United States. In exhibit C-26 of its April 28, 2006, supplemental 
response, Corus provided both the

[[Page 71527]]

invoices and the frame agreements governing this transaction. Because 
Corus and its unaffiliated customer did not agree on the price and 
quantity terms until the invoice was issued, the JIT sales fail to meet 
the criteria for EP sales which arise where the ``the first sale to an 
unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported into the 
United States.'' See the Department's January 4, 2006, Questionnaire at 
I-7.
    Additionally, we do not agree with Corus Staal's claim that the 
relevant frame agreement governs the sale between the JIT customer and 
Corus, because, as the aforementioned JIT sale demonstrates, an order 
was cancelled after importation and sold to another customer in the 
United States. Furthermore, in this review, Corus Staal has maintained 
it is upon invoicing ``that the final quantity, price and product sold 
are ultimately determined.'' See Corus Staal's February 9, 2006, QR at 
C-19. Corus Staal further argues `` until this point, both the customer 
and Corus can and do make changes that affect the price and quantity of 
the product shipped and/or the product supplied. Therefore, there is no 
date other than the invoice date that better reflects the time at which 
the material terms of a transaction are fixed.'' Id. at C-20. 
Furthermore, Corus reiterated its position in its supplemental response 
when it stated ``for the POR, use of invoice date most accurately 
reflects commercial reality as to the time that the sale took place and 
at which the material terms of sale become final and fixed. Use of any 
earlier date would ignore the many subsequent changes in terms prior to 
invoicing and shipping.'' See Corus Staal's April 28, 2006, SQR at 21.
    Thus, Corus Staal's responses indicate that the invoice date is the 
appropriate date to use in determining when a sale or agreement of sale 
first occurs, as changes often do occur between the frame agreement and 
the date of invoice. See Corus Staal's April 28, 2006 SQR at 21. 
Therefore, the Department does not find that the frame agreement is the 
governing document in determining when a sale is agreed upon or when it 
is executed. The statute defines EP sales as those where the goods are 
``first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation'' 
and because the material terms of sale are fixed in the invoice, which 
is issued by Corus after importation, it is clear that in the case of 
the JIT sales, the sales do not meet the criterion of having been made 
before importation.
    Furthermore, the CIT recently decided this issue in the second 
administrative review of this proceeding when it held that:
    turning to the application of the law to the facts of this case, 
Commerce properly applied the definition of 'sold (or agreed to be 
sold)' to the case at hand. As the material terms of the sale or 
agreement to sell were not fixed until the final invoice, Commerce 
could properly conclude that the final invoices determined when a sale 
or agreement to sell first occurred. It follows that the sale or 
agreement to sell occurred after importation in the United States. 
Therefore, Commerce correctly classified the JIT transactions as CEP 
transactions pursuant to 19 U.S.C.Sec.  1677a(a) and (b). See Corus 
Staal BV v. United States, Slip Op. 06-112 at 20 (Corus Staal) (CIT 
July 25, 2006).
    In accordance with the CIT's recent decision in Corus Staal, the 
Department has preliminarily determined the sales classified as JIT 
sales should continue to be reclassified as CEP sales for the purposes 
of this review. The price and quantity were not fixed until the invoice 
to the U.S. customer was issued as evidenced in the example of one 
order to the JIT customer, which was cancelled after importation and 
where such goods were then resold to another U.S. customer. 
Furthermore, the goods in JIT inventory are physically in the United 
States when the invoices containing the fixed price and quantity terms 
to the unaffiliated customers are issued. The Department determines 
such sales are CEP sales because section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP 
as ``the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or 
agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of 
importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such 
merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to 
a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.'' EP sales 
are clearly defined as taking place ``before the date of importation'' 
whereas CEP sales are defined as taking place ``before or after the 
date of importation''.
    With respect to the remainder of Corus Staal's reported EP sales 
(i.e., those sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers made between November 
1, 2004 and October 31, 2005), we have continued to classify these as 
EP transactions because the contracts governing these sales were signed 
by Corus Staal in the Netherlands, and because such sales were invoiced 
before importation.
    For those sales which we are classifying as EP transactions, we 
calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP 
on the packed, delivered, duty paid prices for export to end users and 
service centers in the U.S. market. We adjusted gross unit price for 
billing errors, freight revenue, and early payment discounts, where 
applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. 
inland freight, U.S. brokerage expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses.
    For CEP sales, we calculated price in conformity with section 
772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, delivered, duty paid 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where 
applicable, we made adjustments to gross unit price for billing errors, 
freight revenue, and early payment discounts. We also made deductions 
for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
customs duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage expenses, and U.S. 
warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, 
we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses 
(imputed credit, warranty, etc.), inventory carrying costs, and 
indirect selling expenses. For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment 
for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    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/CEP transaction. The 
NV LOT is that of the starting price of the comparison sales in the 
home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the 
sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting 
price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For 
CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the 
importer, after adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP/CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of

[[Page 71528]]

distribution between the producer and the 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 at different levels of trade in the home 
country, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the 
factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining 
whether the differences in the levels between NV and CEP sales affect 
price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 
(i.e., the CEP offset provision).
    In implementing these principles in the instant review, we obtained 
information from Corus Staal about the marketing stages involved in its 
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by Corus Staal and the level to which each 
selling activity was performed for each channel of distribution. In 
identifying LOTs for U.S. CEP sales, we considered the selling 
functions reflected in the starting price after any adjustments under 
section 772(d) of the Act.
    In the home market, Corus Staal reported two channels of 
distribution (sales by Corus Staal and sales through its affiliated 
service centers Namascor and Laura) and three customer categories (end 
users, steel service centers, and trading companies). See, e.g., Corus 
Staal's February 9, 2006, QR at A-21. For both channels of distribution 
in the home market, Corus Staal performed similar selling functions, 
including strategic and economic planning, advertising, freight and 
delivery arrangements, technical/warranty services, and sales logistics 
support. The remaining selling activities performed did not differ 
significantly by channel of distribution, with the exception of market 
research and research and development activities, which were performed 
only by Corus Staal. See Corus Staal's February 9, 2006, QR at Exhibit 
A-8 and pages A-21 through A-44. Because the selling activities among 
the channels of distribution are sufficiently similar, we find that one 
LOT exists for Corus Staal's home market sales.
    In the U.S. market, Corus Staal reported a single channel of 
distribution for its sales of subject merchandise during the POR. For 
EP sales made directly to U.S. customers, Corus Staal reported two 
customer categories, end users and steel service centers. See, e.g., 
Corus Staal's February 9, 2006, QR at A-23. Corus noted that it shipped 
subject merchandise to one affiliated customer in the United States, 
Thomas Steel, which in turn shipped a small portion of this material, 
after further processing, to HMU. See Id. at A-24. However, as 
explained elsewhere in this notice, Thomas Steel and HMU provided data 
in simplified reporting format and thus detailed information was not 
provided on Thomas Steel's sales activities. Corus notes that it treats 
Thomas Steel in the same manner as all unaffiliated U.S. customers for 
all purposes. See Id. at A-44.
    As noted in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' 
section of this notice, we have preliminarily determined that certain 
of Corus Staal's reported EP transactions (i.e., sales where invoicing 
took place after date of entry) are properly classified as CEP sales.
    As to these Corus Staal sales to customers in the United States 
which we have reclassified as CEP transactions, we considered whether 
such sales were made at the same level of trade. Comparing the selling 
activities performed and services offered by Corus Staal on its CEP 
sales to customers in the United States to those activities performed 
on its home market sales, we found there to be few differences in the 
selling functions performed by Corus Staal on its sales to customers in 
the United States and those performed for sales in the home market. For 
example, on sales to both home market customers and to U.S. customers, 
Corus Staal provided similar strategic and economic planning, freight 
and delivery services, technical/warranty assistance, research and 
development, and sales logistics support. See, e.g., Corus Staal's 
February 9, 2006, QR at pages A-22 through A-60. As a result, we 
preliminarily find that there is not a significant difference in 
selling functions performed in the U.S. and home markets on these 
sales. Thus, for those sales which we have preliminarily determined are 
CEP sales, we find that Corus Staal's home market sales and sales to 
customers in the United States were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, 
no LOT adjustment or CEP offset adjustment to NV is warranted for these 
CEP sales.
    Finally, for those sales which we are continuing to classify as EP, 
we compared the selling activities performed and services offered by 
Corus Staal on its sales to unaffiliated customers in the United States 
to those activities performed on its home market sales, we found there 
to be few differences in the selling functions performed by Corus 
Staal. Thus, we find that Corus Staal's home market sales and sales to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States were made at the same LOT. 
Accordingly, no LOT adjustment is necessary.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market
    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is 
greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because the 
respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
was viable. See, e.g., Corus Staal's February 9, 2006 QR at Attachment 
A-2 and Corus Staal's July 14, 2006 SQR at Attachment A-35.
B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
    Corus Staal reported sales in the home market to affiliated 
resellers and end-users. Sales to affiliated customers in the home 
market not made at arm's-length prices are excluded from our analysis 
because we consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. 
See 19 CFR 351.102(b). Prior to performing the arm's-length test on 
Corus Staal's sales to affiliated customers, we aggregated multiple 
customer codes reported for individual affiliates in order to treat 
them as single entities. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party 
Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 
2002) (Modification to Affiliated Party Sales). To test whether the 
sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a 
model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers net of all direct selling expenses, discounts 
and rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where prices to the 
affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent 
of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated 
parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were 
at arm's length. See Modification to Affiliated Party Sales at 69187-
88. In accordance with the Department's practice, we only included in 
our margin analysis those sales to affiliated parties that were made at 
arm's length.

[[Page 71529]]

    C. Cost of Production Analysis
    Because we disregarded sales of certain products made at prices 
below the cost of production (COP) in the most recently completed 
segment of the proceeding at the time of initiation of this review, 
i.e., the 2002-2003 review of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands 
(see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
70 FR 18366 (April 11, 2005), we have reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that Corus Staal made sales of the foreign like product at 
prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated 
a COP investigation of sales by Corus Staal.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of Corus Staal's 
material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for SG&A and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP 
data reported by Corus Staal.
    For a list of the product characteristics considered in our 
analysis, see the section ``Product Comparisons'' above. We compared 
the weighted-average COP figures to the home market sales prices of the 
foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to 
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a 
product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net 
of billing adjustments, freight revenue, certain minor processing 
expenses, discounts and rebates, and any applicable movement charges.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act whether, within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities and whether such 
sales were made at prices which did not permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent 
of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices 
below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an 
extended period of time and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 
percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model 
were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales 
because: (1) they were made within an extended period of time in 
``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the 
weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    Our cost test for Corus Staal revealed that for home market sales 
of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models 
were at prices below the COP. We retained all such sales in our 
analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test 
also indicated that for other models sold by Corus Staal, more than 20 
percent of the home market sales of those models were sold at prices 
below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which 
would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded 
these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-
cost sales as the basis for determining NV.
D. Constructed Value (CV)
    While in this preliminary determination no sales are compared to 
CV, we nevertheless calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of 
the Act. We based CV on the sum of the Corus Staal's material and 
fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We 
calculated the COP component of CV and weight-averaged the CVs reported 
for identical products produced in both the conventional hot-rolling 
mill and direct sheet plant as described above in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on 
the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling 
expenses, we used the actual weighted-average home market direct and 
indirect selling expenses.
E. Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We relied on our model match criteria in order to match U.S. sales 
of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product 
based on the reported physical characteristics of the subject 
merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the 
next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the following 
characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's 
questionnaire. These characteristics are: painted, quality, carbon, 
yield strength, thickness, width, cut-to-length vs coil, temper rolled, 
pickled, edge trim, and patterns in relief. See section 771(16) of the 
Act.
    As indicated earlier, on October 20, 2006, Mittal asked the 
Department to obtain additional information from Corus on products 
produced by the DSP mill and hot-rolled mill to ensure that the 
Department calculates the most accurate margin possible. However, the 
Department has already addressed this issue in the 2001-2002 
administrative review of this case where the Department determined 
``because the information on the record does not establish sufficient 
differences in physical characteristics between conventional hot-rolled 
mill and DSP products, we have not made any changes to our model match 
criteria for these final results.'' See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 18366 (April 11, 2005) and the 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 1. The 
Department has no information on the record of this proceeding, other 
than Mittal's October 20, 2006, submission, that would support the 
Department reexamining our model match criteria for this preliminary 
determination.
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or 
prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length. We 
adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, early payment 
discounts, rebates, freight revenue, interest revenue and tolling 
revenues, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
foreign inland freight and warehousing, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for 
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise (i.e., difmer) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses, warranty expenses, and credit 
insurance. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act.
F. Price-to-CV Comparisons
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV 
if we are unable to find a home market match of

[[Page 71530]]

such or similar merchandise. Where appropriate, we make adjustments to 
CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Where we compare CV 
to CEP, we deduct from CV the weighted-average home market direct 
selling expenses. However, in this review we have preliminarily found 
contemporaneous matches for all U.S. sales, and therefore, have not 
based NV on CV.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Manufacturer / Exporter                 Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corus Staal BV (Corus Staal)........................                2.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 
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. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed 
no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to 
submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief 
summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. An interested 
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the 
date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the 
Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). The 
Department will issue the final results of these preliminary results, 
including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such 
written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of 
these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. 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 Notice of Policy Concerning 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 Corus Staal BVfor which Corus Staal BV did 
not know that the merchandise it sold to an 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 2.59 percent all-others rate established in the original 
less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, if there is no rate for the 
intermediary involved in the transaction. See the Assessment-Policy 
Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion 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 of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
company will be the rate established in the final results of the 
administrative review (except that no deposit will be required if the 
rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
that established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the 
merchandise; and (3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 
firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV 
investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 2.59 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Antidumping 
Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
Netherlands, 67 FR 59565 (November 29, 2001).
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 30, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-20923 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510-DS-S