Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 4486-4490 [E7-1462]

Download as PDF 4486 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Notices raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer–specific assessment rates based on the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR divided by the total quantity (in kilograms) of the examined sales. Upon completion of this review, where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we shall instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP fifteen days after the date of publication of the final results of review. [A–357–812] mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rate will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for shipments of stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act. For subject merchandise produced and exported by Kunj, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero. This cash deposit requirement, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties 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 Tariff Act. Dated: January 25, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–1575 Filed 1–30–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Jan 30, 2007 Jkt 211001 International Trade Administration Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Honey from Argentina Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cordell or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, 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– 0469, respectively. On November 24, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina, covering the period December 1, 2004, through December 31, 2005, and the following exporter: Patagonik S.A. See Honey From Argentina: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 67850 (November 24, 2006). On December 15, 2006, the Federal Register published a correction notice due to typographical errors in the original preliminary results notice. See Corrections Honey From Argentina: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 75614 (December 15, 2006). The final results are currently due on February 14, 2007.1 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the final results of a new shipper review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the final results of a new shipper review to 150 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). 1 The November 24, 2006, Federal Register Notice stated the Department would issue final results within 120 days of publication of the Preliminary Results. The Notice should have read that the Department will issue the final results within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. See 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1). The Department hereby corrects this inadvertent error. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 As a result of extraordinarily complicated issues raised in the review segment, specifically the multiple issues raised by petitioner with regard to the bona fide nature of the sale as well as issues regarding the beekeepers’ costs, it is not practicable to complete this new shipper review within the current time limit. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results by 60 days until April 15, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). Because April 15 falls on a Sunday, the deadline for the completion of the final results is April 16, 2007, the next business day. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Dated: January 23, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–1461 Filed 1–30–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–834] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 10, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) (71 FR 18074). This review covers five producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. We are rescinding the review with respect to eight companies because they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculation for DaiYang Metal Co., Ltd. (DMC), a respondent in this review. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted– average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Notices EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES Itkin or Brianne Riker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0656 and (202) 482–0629, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers the following five producers/exporters: Boorim Corporation (Boorim), Dae Kyung Corporation (Dae Kyung), Dine Trading Co., Ltd. (Dine), DMC, and Dosko Co., Ltd. (Dosko). On April 10, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Korea. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 18074 (April 10, 2006) (Preliminary Results). Prior to the preliminary results, the following companies informed the Department that they had no shipments to the United States during the POR: BNG Steel Co. (BNG), Hyundai Corporation (Hyundai), NIC International Co., Ltd. (NIC), Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO), Samkyung Corporation (Samkyung), Sammi Corporation (Sammi), Samwon Precision Metals Co., Ltd. (Samwon), and Sun Woo Tech Company (Sun Woo). We reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these companies. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding our review for BNG, Hyundai, NIC, POSCO, Samkyoung, Sammi, Samwon, and Sun Woo. For further discussion, see the ‘‘Partial Rescission of Review’’ section of this notice, below. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In May 2006, we received case briefs and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners (i.e., Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc., and the United Steelworkers) and DMC. Scope of the Order The products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Jan 30, 2007 Jkt 211001 Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat–rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 millimeters in width and less than 4.75 millimeters in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed (E.G., cold–rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81,1 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department’s written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: 1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled; 2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; 3) plate (i.e., flat–rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more); 4) flat wire (i.e., cold–rolled sections, with a prepared 1 Due to changes to the HTSUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4487 edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 millimeters); and 5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat–rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold–rolled (coldreduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 millimeters and a thickness of 0.266 millimeters or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ‘‘Additional U.S. Note’’ 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product that is used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 millimeters, and with a mass of 225 kilograms or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of two millimeter depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of two millimeters maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 millimeters over 685 millimeters length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES 4488 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Notices more than one percent, manganese of no more than one percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron–chromiumcobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and seven to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 millimeters or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 millimeters. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as ‘‘Arnokrome III.’’2 Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non– magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1,390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of four kilograms per square millimeter at 1,000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as ‘‘Gilphy 36.’’3 Certain martensitic precipitation– hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high–strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System as S45500– grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and seven to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1,700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1,750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 millimeters. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 millimeters, and in widths of 25.4 millimeters. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as ‘‘Durphynox 17.’’4 Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., carpet knives).5 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as ‘‘GIN4 Mo.’’ The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is ‘‘GIN5’’ steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, ‘‘GIN6.’’6 Period of Review The POR is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, BNG, Hyundai, NIC, POSCO, Samkyoung, Sammi, Samwon, and Sun Woo had no shipments and/or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have 4‘‘Durphynox 17’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 ‘‘GIN4 Mo,’’ ‘‘GIN5,’’ and ‘‘GIN6’’ are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 5 This 2 ‘‘Arnokrome III’’ is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. 3 ‘‘Gilphy 36’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Jan 30, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 confirmed this with CBP data. See the November 9, 2005, memorandum to the file from Brianne Riker, entitled ‘‘Placing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data on the Record of the 2004 - 2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea.’’ Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department’s practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005); Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004); Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sept. 9, 2003). Cost of Production As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether DMC made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below its cost of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results. We found that 20 percent or more of DMC’s sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted–average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below–cost sales were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that DMC made below–cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Facts Available In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Notices mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES following producer/exporters: Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko. We find that it continues to be appropriate to apply facts available to these respondents. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: (1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. On August 19, 2005, the Department requested that Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko respond to the Department’s antidumping duty questionnaire. The deadline to file a response was September 27, 2005. The Department did not receive a response from Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, or Dosko. On November 4, 2005, the Department placed a memorandum on the record with information regarding delivery confirmation of the questionnaires to each company. See the November 4, 2005, memorandum to the file from Brianne Riker entitled, ‘‘Placing Information on the Record of the 2004–2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea.’’ Thus, because these companies did not respond to the Department’s questionnaire, as in the preliminary results, the Department must use facts otherwise available with regard to Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 18076. Adverse Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Jan 30, 2007 Jkt 211001 by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We find that Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department’s questionnaire. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as adverse facts available (AFA), information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) the final determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any other information placed on the record. The Department’s practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). Additionally, the Department’s practice has been to assign the highest margin determined for any party in the less– than-fair–value (LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review of a specific order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the Department. See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064, 40066 (July 14, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at the ‘‘Facts Available’’ section. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4489 In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 58.79 percent, which was the rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV investigation, to Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko. This rate was assigned in a previous segment of this proceeding and is the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic of Korea; and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 66 FR 45279 (Aug. 28, 2001). The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule (i.e., we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). We continue to find that the information upon which this margin is based has sufficient probative value to satisfy the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 18077. Neither Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, Dosko nor any other interested party submitted comments regarding the Department’s preliminary corroboration analysis for purposes of the final results. Therefore, we have continued to assign to exports of the subject merchandise by Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko the rate of 58.79 percent. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo), which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B–099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculation for DMC. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1 4490 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Notices previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or in the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, Manufacturer/Producer/ Margin Percentage Exporter then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent Boorim Corporation ...... 58.79 period for the manufacturer of the Dae Kyung Corporation 58.79 merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit DaiYang Metal Co., Ltd. 3.77 Dine Trading Co., Ltd. .. 58.79 rate for all other manufacturers or Dosko Co., Ltd. ............. 58.79 exporters will continue to be 2.49 percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV investigation. Assessment These deposit requirements, when The Department shall determine, and imposed, shall remain in effect until CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on publication of the final results of the all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 next administrative review. CFR 351.212(b)(1), because we have the reported entered value of DMC’s U.S. Notification to Importers sales, we have calculated importer– This notice also serves as a final specific assessment rates for DMC based reminder to importers of their on the ratio of the total amount of responsibility under 19 CFR antidumping duties calculated for the 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate examined sales to the total entered regarding the reimbursement of value of those sales. For Boorim, Dae antidumping duties prior to liquidation Kyung, Dine, and Dosko, we will of the relevant entries during this instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the review period. Failure to comply with rates indicated above. The Department this requirement could result in the will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. The Department intends Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties to issue assessment instructions to CBP occurred and the subsequent assessment 15 days after the date of publication of of doubled antidumping duties. these final results of review. This notice also serves as the only The Department clarified its reminder to parties subject to ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on administrative protective order (APO) of May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This their responsibility concerning the clarification will apply to entries of disposition of proprietary information subject merchandise during the POR disclosed under APO in accordance produced by companies included in with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely these final results of review for which notification of return/destruction of the reviewed companies did not know APO materials or conversion to judicial their merchandise was destined for the United States, as well as any companies protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations for which we are rescinding the review and the terms of an APO is a based on claims of no shipments. In sanctionable violation. such instances, we will instruct CBP to We are issuing and publishing this liquidate unreviewed entries at the All determination and notice in accordance Others rate if there is no rate for the with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the intermediate company(ies) involved in Act. the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and David M. Spooner, Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 Appendix Issues in Decision Memo FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted–average margin percentages exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of SSSSC from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above; (2) for VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Jan 30, 2007 Jkt 211001 1. Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset 2. Offset for Countervailing (CVD) Duties 3. U.S. Indirect Selling Expense (ISE) Ratio 4. U.S. Date of Sale 5. Home Market Sale Date of Sale 6. Home Market Early Payment and Quantity Discounts 7. Home Market Credit Expenses PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8. Whether to Apply an Adverse Inference to DMC’s Reported Yield Information 9. DMC’s Hot Coil Purchases [FR Doc. E7–1462 Filed 1–30–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Public Meeting on the Influence of European Standards in the Middle East and North Africa International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Engage stakeholders in a dialogue on the increased use of European standards in the Middle East and North Africa and market access for U.S. exporters. Invite public comment on this subject. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The use of European standards in the Middle East and North Africa is growing. The European Union (EU) is providing technical assistance and building ties to harmonize regulations and standards so as to facilitate trade between the EU and these regions. This meeting will provide U.S. industry an opportunity to exchange their experiences and express their views on this subject. DATES: The date of the meeting is Thursday, February 15, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following methods: • E-mail: Jennifer.Derstine@mail.doc.gov. • Fax: 202–482–0878. • Mail: U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2029B, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. • Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2029B, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Derstine, Room 2029B, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–1870. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For more than ten years the European Commission has offered technical assistance to a broad group of countries in institution building, developing regulatory and administrative infrastructure, and support for conformity assessment, market surveillance, and metrology organizations. Europe’s financial and technical support makes countries more E:\FR\FM\31JAN1.SGM 31JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4486-4490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-834]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of 
Korea; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 10, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 
(SSSSC) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) (71 FR 18074). This review 
covers five producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2004, through June 
30, 2005. We are rescinding the review with respect to eight companies 
because they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculation for DaiYang Metal Co., Ltd. (DMC), a 
respondent in this review. Therefore, the final results differ from the 
preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the 
reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results 
of Review.''

[[Page 4487]]


EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Brianne Riker, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0656 and (202) 482-0629, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This review covers the following five producers/exporters: Boorim 
Corporation (Boorim), Dae Kyung Corporation (Dae Kyung), Dine Trading 
Co., Ltd. (Dine), DMC, and Dosko Co., Ltd. (Dosko).
    On April 10, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on SSSSC from Korea. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 18074 
(April 10, 2006) (Preliminary Results).
    Prior to the preliminary results, the following companies informed 
the Department that they had no shipments to the United States during 
the POR: BNG Steel Co. (BNG), Hyundai Corporation (Hyundai), NIC 
International Co., Ltd. (NIC), Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO), 
Samkyung Corporation (Samkyung), Sammi Corporation (Sammi), Samwon 
Precision Metals Co., Ltd. (Samwon), and Sun Woo Tech Company (Sun 
Woo). We reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and 
confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of 
these companies. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) 
and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding our review for BNG, 
Hyundai, NIC, POSCO, Samkyoung, Sammi, Samwon, and Sun Woo. For further 
discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this 
notice, below.
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. 
In May 2006, we received case briefs and rebuttal briefs from the 
petitioners (i.e., Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, 
North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville 
Armco Independent Organization, Inc., and the United Steelworkers) and 
DMC.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in 
coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or 
without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled 
product in coils that is greater than 9.5 millimeters in width and less 
than 4.75 millimeters in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise 
heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and 
strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, 
aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific 
dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81,\1\ 
7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 
7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 
7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 
7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 
7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 
7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 
7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 
7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 
7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 
7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 
7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, 
and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Due to changes to the HTSUS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 
7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 
7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: 1) sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled; 2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; 3) plate 
(i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 
millimeters or more); 4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
millimeters); and 5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-
rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled 
(cold- reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 millimeters 
and a thickness of 0.266 millimeters or less, containing, by weight, 
12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be 
used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, 
``Additional U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope. Flapper valve 
steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by 
weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 
percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This 
steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, 
silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent 
or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, 
with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and 
for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a 
tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 
170 and 270 ksi, 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. 
Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper 
valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product that is used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of 2.01 microns, and 
surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be 
supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 millimeters, and with a 
mass of 225 kilograms or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one 
side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of two millimeter depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of two millimeters maximum deflection, and flatness 
of 1.6 millimeters over 685 millimeters length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no

[[Page 4488]]

more than one percent, manganese of no more than one percent, chromium 
of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 
percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and 
total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance 
iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and seven to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 millimeters 
or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 millimeters. It 
exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a 
coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most 
commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Arnokrome III.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent 
nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable 
for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting 
point of 1,390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 
four kilograms per square millimeter at 1,000 degrees Celsius. This 
steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for 
circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway 
locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Gilphy 36.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent 
chromium, and seven to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon 
and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with 
phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. 
This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, 
and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1,700 Mpa and ultimate 
tensile strengths as high as 1,750 Mpa after aging, with elongation 
percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 millimeters. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 millimeters, and in 
widths of 25.4 millimeters. This product is most commonly used in the 
manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Durphynox 17.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\5\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \6\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5,'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, BNG, Hyundai, NIC, POSCO, Samkyoung, Sammi, Samwon, 
and Sun Woo had no shipments and/or entries of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with CBP data. 
See the November 9, 2005, memorandum to the file from Brianne Riker, 
entitled ``Placing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data on the 
Record of the 2004 - 2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea.'' 
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with 
the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to 
these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 
FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005); Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 
69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004); Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 
68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sept. 9, 2003).

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether DMC made home market sales of the 
foreign like product during the POR at prices below its cost of 
production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We 
performed the cost test for these final results following the same 
methodology as in the Preliminary Results.
    We found that 20 percent or more of DMC's sales of a given product 
during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-
average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost 
sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period 
of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See 
sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
    Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that DMC 
made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. 
Consequently, we disregarded these sales and used the remaining sales 
as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act.

Facts Available

    In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was 
appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the

[[Page 4489]]

following producer/exporters: Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko. We 
find that it continues to be appropriate to apply facts available to 
these respondents. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the 
Department will apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, 
necessary information is not available on the record or an interested 
party: (1) Withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines 
established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, 
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) 
significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides such information, 
but the information cannot be verified.
    On August 19, 2005, the Department requested that Boorim, Dae 
Kyung, Dine, and Dosko respond to the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire. The deadline to file a response was September 27, 2005. 
The Department did not receive a response from Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, 
or Dosko. On November 4, 2005, the Department placed a memorandum on 
the record with information regarding delivery confirmation of the 
questionnaires to each company. See the November 4, 2005, memorandum to 
the file from Brianne Riker entitled, ``Placing Information on the 
Record of the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea.'' Thus, because 
these companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, as 
in the preliminary results, the Department must use facts otherwise 
available with regard to Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko, pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act of the Act. See Preliminary 
Results, 71 FR at 18076.

Adverse Facts Available

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 
54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 
FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement 
of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, 
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 
1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We find that Boorim, Dae Kyung, 
Dine, and Dosko did not act to the best of their abilities in this 
proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because 
they failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, an 
adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. 
See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
adverse facts available (AFA), information derived from: 1) the 
petition; 2) the final determination in the investigation; 3) any 
previous review; or 4) any other information placed on the record.
    The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among 
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See, e.g., Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 
Negative Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 
23, 1998). Additionally, the Department's practice has been to assign 
the highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review of a specific 
order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the Department. 
See, e.g., Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, 
Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064, 40066 (July 14, 2006); Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at the ``Facts Available'' section.
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 58.79 percent, which was 
the rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation of the 
LTFV investigation, to Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko. This rate 
was assigned in a previous segment of this proceeding and is the 
highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of this 
proceeding. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic 
of Korea; and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the 
Republic of Korea, 66 FR 45279 (Aug. 28, 2001). The Department finds 
that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the 
facts available rule (i.e., we find that this rate is high enough to 
encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). We continue to find that 
the information upon which this margin is based has sufficient 
probative value to satisfy the requirements of section 776(c) of the 
Act. See Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 18077.
    Neither Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, Dosko nor any other interested 
party submitted comments regarding the Department's preliminary 
corroboration analysis for purposes of the final results. Therefore, we 
have continued to assign to exports of the subject merchandise by 
Boorim, Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko the rate of 58.79 percent.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review and to which we have responded are listed in the 
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (Decision Memo), which is adopted by this notice. Parties 
can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and 
the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is 
on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department 
building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain 
changes in the margin calculation for DMC. These changes are discussed 
in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.

[[Page 4490]]

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages 
exist for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter              Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boorim Corporation..................................               58.79
Dae Kyung Corporation...............................               58.79
DaiYang Metal Co., Ltd..............................                3.77
Dine Trading Co., Ltd...............................               58.79
Dosko Co., Ltd......................................               58.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
because we have the reported entered value of DMC's U.S. sales, we have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for DMC based on the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. For Boorim, 
Dae Kyung, Dine, and Dosko, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries 
at the rates indicated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to CBP. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
these final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in 
these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not 
know their merchandise was destined for the United States, as well as 
any companies for which we are rescinding the review based on claims of 
no shipments. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
unreviewed entries at the All Others rate if there is no rate for the 
intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full 
discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 
2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of SSSSC from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above; (2) for 
previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, or in the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 2.49 percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV 
investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.

Appendix Issues in Decision Memo

1. Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset
2. Offset for Countervailing (CVD) Duties
3. U.S. Indirect Selling Expense (ISE) Ratio
4. U.S. Date of Sale
5. Home Market Sale Date of Sale
6. Home Market Early Payment and Quantity Discounts
7. Home Market Credit Expenses
8. Whether to Apply an Adverse Inference to DMC's Reported Yield 
Information
9. DMC's Hot Coil Purchases
[FR Doc. E7-1462 Filed 1-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.