Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 15106-15110 [E7-5860]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15106-15110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5860]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-412-822]


Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a timely request by Firth Rixson Ltd., the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the 
United Kingdom with respect to Enpar Special Alloys Ltd. (Enpar). The 
period of review (POR) is March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006.
    We preliminarily determine that sales 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 on all appropriate 
entries.
    In addition, the Department has received information sufficient to 
warrant a successor-in-interest analysis in this administrative review. 
Based on this information, we preliminarily determine that Enpar is the 
successor-in-interest to Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. for purposes 
of determining antidumping duty liability. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  March 30, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, 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-
4929 or (202) 482-4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 7, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from the United 
Kingdom. See Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from the 
United Kingdom, 67 FR 10381 (March 7, 2002).
    In response to timely requests by manufacturer/exporters, Firth 
Rixson Ltd.\1\ and Corus Engineering Steels (Corus), the Department 
published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with 
respect to these companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 25145 (April 28, 
2006). The POR is March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Firth Rixson Ltd. is the parent company of Enpar, the 
respondent in this review, which was formerly known as Firth Rixson 
Special Steels Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 25, 2006, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the 
above-mentioned companies. On May 16, 2006, Enpar requested that the 
Department allow it to limit its reporting of home market sales and 
cost of production information in this

[[Page 15107]]

review. In a letter dated May 26, 2006, we permitted Enpar to limit its 
reporting of home market sales to the six-month contemporaneous window 
period of October 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006, and to certain 
grades of stainless steel bar, as long as Enpar reported complete sales 
and cost information for sales of these grades as well as for sales of 
the five most similar grades. In addition, we permitted Enpar to limit 
its cost of production reporting to these same grades, but we required 
that cost information be reported for the entire POR.
    On June 1, 2006, Corus timely withdrew its request for an 
administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced period. 
Accordingly, we published a notice rescinding the review with respect 
to this company. See Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: 
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
71 FR 34895 (June 16, 2006).
    On June 23, 2006, we received Enpar's response to both the sales 
and cost of production portions of the antidumping questionnaire. We 
issued a supplemental questionnaire (sales) to Enpar on August 8, 2006, 
to which Enpar responded on September 8, 2006. We issued supplemental 
questionnaires (cost) on July 24 and September 18, 2006, and received 
responses on September 8 and October 12, 2006, respectively.
    On October 16, 2006, we extended the time limit for the preliminary 
results in this review by 120 days. See Stainless Steel Bar from the 
United Kingdom: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review, 71 FR 60691 (October 
16, 2006).
    We issued additional supplemental questionnaires (cost) on October 
31 and December 19, 2006, and received responses on November 28, 2006 
and January 5, 2007, respectively.
    During the periods November 13 - 16, 2006, and February 22 - March 
2, 2007, we conducted the sales and cost verifications of the 
questionnaire responses of Enpar.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, the term ``stainless steel bar'' 
includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been 
either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise 
cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along 
their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, 
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other 
convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless 
steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether 
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, 
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other 
deformations produced during the rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or 
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 
least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless 
steel sheet, strip or plate, wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do 
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, 
shapes and sections.
    The stainless steel bar subject to this order is currently 
classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Successor-In-Interest Analysis

    In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the Department is conducting a successor-in-interest 
analysis to determine whether Enpar is the successor-in-interest to 
Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. for purposes of determining 
antidumping liability with respect to the subject merchandise. In 
making such a successor-in-interest determination, the Department 
examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) 
management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and 
(4) customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene 
Rubber from Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002) (Polychloroprene Rubber 
from Japan); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992) 
(Canadian Brass). While no individual factor or combination of these 
factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication, the 
Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor 
to the previous company if its resulting operation is not materially 
dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Polychloroprene 
Rubber from Japan; Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final 
Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 
1994); Canadian Brass; Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: 
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 50880 (September 23, 1998) (unchanged 
in final results, Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final 
Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999)). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates 
that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject 
merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as 
the former company, the Department will generally accord the new 
company the same antidumping duty treatment as its predecessor.
    We preliminarily determine that Enpar is the successor-in-interest 
to Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. Enpar explained in its 
questionnaire response that Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. was a 
subsidiary of the U.K.-based Firth Rixson Ltd. Firth Rixson Special 
Steels Ltd. and two other subsidiaries of the U.K.-based Firth Rixson 
Ltd., T.W. Pearson and Enpar, were combined in 2003 to form Enpar. 
Enpar has the same company registration number as that of Firth Rixson 
Special Steels Ltd., the registered office is the same for both 
companies, and three of Enpar's four directors were also directors of 
Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. We confirmed at verification that 
Enpar's business structure is the same as that of Firth Rixson Special 
Steels Ltd. Although certain upgrades have been made to the production 
facility, the supplier and customer bases and relationships remain the 
same. In fact, the only real change is the name of the subsidiary. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily find that Enpar should receive the same 
antidumping duty treatment with respect to stainless steel bar as the 
former Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar by Enpar to the 
United States were made below NV, we compared export price (EP) to the 
NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual

[[Page 15108]]

U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like 
product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as 
discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared Enpar's U.S. sales to 
sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, 
which extends from three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months 
after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in 
the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare 
to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making 
the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the 
physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following 
order: finish, grade, remelting, type of final finishing operation, 
shape and size.

Export Price

    We used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly by Enpar to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation 
and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise 
indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States.
    Enpar reported its U.S. sales on a delivered duty paid basis. We 
made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, international freight, foreign inland and marine 
insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight 
and U.S. duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.402.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared Enpar'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)(C) of the Act.
    Because Enpar'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 
its home market was viable.

Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order 
to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in 
the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 
system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), including 
selling activities, class of customer (customer category), and the 
level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\2\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine 
the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive 
selling expenses, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, 
and profit for CV, where possible. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 2664 
(January 16, 1998) (unchanged in final determination, Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic 
Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 31411 (June 9, 1998)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different 
LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, 
and where the difference affects price comparability, we make an LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 
sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability (i.e., no LOT 
adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, 
as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South 
Africa, 62 FR at 61732-33.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from Enpar 
regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign 
market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed for each channel of distribution. Enpar reported 
that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a single distribution 
channel (i.e., sales to end users through a commission agent). We 
examined the selling activities Enpar performed during the POR for this 
channel, and based on verification, we found that Enpar performed the 
following selling activities for its U.S. sales: sales and marketing, 
freight and delivery, and payment of commissions. Because all sales in 
the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    Enpar reported that it made sales to the home market through two 
channels of distribution (i.e., sales to service centers and sales to 
end users). We examined the selling activities Enpar performed during 
the POR for both channels, and based on verification, we found that the 
only selling activities Enpar performed for its home market sales were 
sales and marketing and freight and delivery. Because Enpar performed 
identical selling functions for both channels of distribution, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that, with the exception of commission payments in the U.S. market, the 
core selling activities performed for the U.S. and the home markets are 
identical. As there were no other differences in selling activities 
between the two markets, we preliminarily determine that sales to the 
U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as 
a result, no LOT adjustment is warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we assigned Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. a margin based 
on total adverse facts available in the first

[[Page 15109]]

administrative review,\3\ which was the most recently completed segment 
of this proceeding as of the publication date of the initiation of this 
review,\4\ there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
Enpar, which we have preliminarily determined is the successor-in-
interest to Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd., made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the 
current review period. Accordingly, we required that Firth Rixson 
provide a response to Section D of the questionnaire, in accordance 
with our normal practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We required that Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. provide a 
response to Section D of the questionnaire in the first 
administrative review.
    \4\ No interested party requested a review of Firth Rixson 
Special Steels Ltd. for the second and third review periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Calculation of Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated 
Enpar's cost of production (``COP'') based on the sum of its costs of 
materials and conversion, plus amounts for general and administrative 
(``G&A'') expenses and interest expenses. See ``Test of Comparison 
Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home market 
selling expenses.
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by the respondent 
in its most recent supplemental section D questionnaire response for 
the COP calculation, except in the following instances:
1. Based on verification findings, for grades 316 and 304, we 
recalculated the average material cost using all grade 316 and 304 
input materials consumed, rather than using only selected grade 316 and 
304 input materials consumed, as reported by Enpar. In addition, when 
recalculating the average material cost, we weighted input prices using 
relative consumption quantities rather than relative purchase 
quantities. We increased the reported material costs for grade 316 and 
304 products by the difference between the reported cost and the 
revised cost we calculated for these products. For all other grades, we 
increased the reported material costs by the average difference between 
the reported costs and revised costs for grades 316 and 304.
2. Based on verification findings, we reallocated conversion costs for 
selected products based on work order times for each process, as 
opposed to the standard times used by Enpar. As the work order times 
were used by Enpar to develop its actual hourly processing rates, we 
deem it appropriate to apply the actual hourly processing rates to the 
same work order times. For all other products, we increased the 
reported variable and fixed conversion costs by the average difference 
between the reported and revised costs of the selected products.
3. Based on verification findings, we adjusted the G&A ratio to exclude 
the offsets for interest income and foreign exchange gains. In 
addition, we calculated the G&A ratio as a percentage of cost of goods 
sold, rather than as a percentage of material costs, as reported by 
Enpar.
Our revisions to Enpar's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum from 
Joseph Welton, Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Enpar Special 
Alloys Limited (Enpar),'' dated March 22, 2007.

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we 
used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices were 
inclusive of billing adjustments and exclusive of any applicable 
movement charges, discounts and rebates, and direct and indirect 
selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate.

3. Results of the COP Test

    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: (1) Whether, within an extended period 
of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. Where less than 20 percent of a respondent's home market sales 
of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard 
any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such 
instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period 
of time and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of 
a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the 
COP, we disregard 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.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of 
Enpar's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in 
addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used 
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We based NV for Enpar on ex-works or CIF prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the home market. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to 
the starting price for billing adjustments. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, from the starting price for discounts and rebates, foreign 
inland freight, and insurance expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 
of the Act. Based on our sales verification findings, we made minor 
revisions to the billing adjustments and foreign inland freight 
expenses reported for certain home market sales. See the March 22, 
2007, memorandum entitled, ``Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results for Enpar Special Alloys Ltd.'' (``Enpar Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum'').
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale 
(``COS'') for imputed credit expenses. Using interest rate information 
provided in Enpar's questionnaire response, we recalculated U.S. and 
home market imputed credit expenses using the average U.S. and U.K. 
short-term interest rates for the POR. See Enpar Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum. As commissions were paid in the U.S. market but 
not in the home market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the 
lesser of (1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market, or (2) 
the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market. We 
revised the reported indirect selling expenses to reflect verification 
findings. See Enpar Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. We also 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in

[[Page 15110]]

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for the period March 1, 2005, through 
February 28, 2006, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enpar Special Alloys Ltd. (formerly Firth Rixson Special           33.87
 Steels Ltd.)...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if 
one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The 
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties 
may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. 
Unless the time period is extended by the Department, case briefs are 
to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice (see 19 CFR 351.309(c)), and rebuttal briefs, limited to 
arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five 
days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must 
be served on interested parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to 
issue assessment instructions for the companies subject to this review 
to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of 
this review.
    We will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment 
rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties 
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the 
examined sales for that importer. We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if 
any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results 
of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). See 19 
CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis 
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise 
covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of 
estimated duties, where applicable.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by any company included in the 
final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know 
that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the ``All Others'' rate if there is no rate for the intermediary 
involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full 
discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective 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)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for the company 
listed above will be that established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the 
cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
this review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.48 percent, the ``All 
Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: March 22, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-5860 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S