Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 36955-36959 [E7-13134]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices Grants and Cooperative Agreements, published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this announcement. This notice may be accessed by entering the Federal Register volume and page number provided in the previous sentence at the following Internet Web site: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ retrieve.html. Paperwork Reduction Act This request for applications contains collections of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the use of Form ED–900A (Application for Investment Assistance) under control number 0610–0094. Form ED–900A’s program-specific component (National Technical Assistance, Training, and Research and Evaluation Program Requirements) also is approved under OMB control number 0610–0094, and incorporates Forms SF–424A (Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs, OMB control number 0348– 0044) and SF–424B (Assurances—NonConstruction Programs, OMB control number 0348–0040). OMB has approved the use of Form SF–424 (Application for Financial Assistance) under control number 4040–0004. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Executive Order 13132 It has been determined that this notice does not contain ‘‘policies that have Federalism implications,’’ as that phrase is defined in Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: June 29, 2007. Benjamin Erulkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development and Chief Operating Officer. [FR Doc. E7–13130 Filed 7–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–24–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on July 25 and 26, 2007, 9 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology. 36955 Yvette Springer at Yspringer@bis.doc.gov. The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on June 6, 2007, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813. Dated: July 2, 2007. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 07–3301 Filed 7–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M Wednesday, July 25 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Public Session International Trade Administration 1. Welcome and Introduction. 2. Election of Chair(s). 3. INFOSEC TWG Briefing. 4. IPMI and Remote Server Management. 5. MIMO Technology Overview. 6. Aggregation Technology. 7. Commercial Encryption Issues. 8. Introduction of (DRAFT) ISTAC Proposals for Wassenaar Arrangement 2008 List Review. 9. Discussion: Comprehensive Review of Commerce Control List. [A–274–804] Thursday, July 26 Closed Session 10. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) from Trinidad and Tobago for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited (‘‘MSPL’’) and its affiliates Mittal Steel North America Inc. (‘‘MSNA’’) and Mittal Walker Wire Inc. (collectively ‘‘Mittal’’) did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’) (i.e., sales were made at de minimis dumping margins). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1 36956 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482– 3692, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (‘‘Wire Rod Orders’’). On October 2, 2006, we published in the Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 57920. We received timely requests for review from petitioners1, and Mittal, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 27, 2006, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, naming Mittal as the respondent. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). On November 29, 2006, we sent a questionnaire to Mittal.2 Mittal submitted its responses to section A of the Department’s questionnaire on January 26, 2007, and to sections B through E on February 2, 2007. On March 1, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments on Mittal’s questionnaire response. On April 18, 2007, the Department sent Mittal a supplemental 1 The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc. (formerly Georgetown Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. 2 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise Section B: Comparison Market Sales Section C: Sales to the United States Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or Assembly Performed in the United States VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 questionnaire for sections A through C. We received the response to the supplemental questionnaire on May 2, 2007. We issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D on May 14, 2007, and received the response on June 11, 2007. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot–rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above–noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non–deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04– 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non–deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04– 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 64079, 64081 (November 12, 2003). The designation of the products as ‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’ indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end– use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) or constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price and Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted–average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect discounts and increased the prices to reflect billing adjustments. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance, survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses from arrival to delivery. For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, and further manufacturing). In addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Mittal’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36957 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Mittal had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which Mittal participated, the Department found that the respondent made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 69512 (November 16, 2005). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Mittal made wire rod sales in Trinidad and Tobago at prices below the cost of production (‘‘COP’’) in this administrative review. As a result, we initiated a COP inquiry for Mittal. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted– average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses, packing expenses, and interest expense. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weighted– average COP to the per–unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below–cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes. 3. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below–cost sales of that product E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1 36958 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices because we determined that the below– cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below– cost sales occurring during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR–average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below–cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR–average costs. D. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or CEP transaction. In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on home market), we consider the starting prices before any VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 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). To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP–offset provision). In the home market, Mittal reported sales made through one LOT corresponding to one channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, Mittal reported two LOTs corresponding to two channels of distribution. Mittal made sales to an unaffiliated trading company and through its U.S. affiliates. We have determined that the sales made by Mittal directly to U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by Mittal’s affiliated U.S. resellers constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have found that U.S. sales and home market sales were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we did not find it necessary to make an LOT adjustment or CEP offset. For further explanation of our LOT analysis see the Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited from Dennis McClure and Stephanie Moore to the File, dated June 29, 2007. of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rate The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer– specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculate Preliminary Results of Review importer–specific assessment rates for As a result of our review, we the subject merchandise by aggregating preliminarily determine that the the dumping margins for all U.S. sales following weighted–average dumping to each importer and dividing the margin exists for the period October 1, amount by the total entered value of the 2005, through September 30, 2006: sales to that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions Weighted–Average to CBP 15 days after the date of Producer/Manufacturer Margin publication of the final results of review. Mittal Steel Point Lisas The Department clarified its Limited ....................... 0.40% (i.e., de minimis) ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and The Department will disclose Countervailing Duty Proceedings: calculations performed within five days Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Notices mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company’s sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Mittal will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less–than-fair– value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod Orders. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:19 Jul 05, 2007 Jkt 211001 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed. These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 29, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–13134 Filed 7–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–809] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker 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) 482–2924 or (202) 482– 0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On March 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 2005–2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India. See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission and Intent to Rescind, 72 FR 10142 (March 7, 2007). The review covers the period from February 1, 2005 through January 31, 2006, and three manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States: Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Shree Ganesh Forgings, Ltd., and Rollwell PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36959 Forge, Ltd. (Rollwell). In the preliminary results we stated that we would issue our final results for the antidumping duty review no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results (i.e., July 5, 2007). Extension of Time Limit for Final Results The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), at section 751(a)(3)(A), states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period, following the date of the publication of the preliminary results, to issue its final results by an additional 60 days. Due to the complexity of the issues raised in this review, which necessitated issuing an additional supplemental questionnaire to Rollwell following issuance of the preliminary results, and the corresponding necessity to analyze the response and comments, the completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by an additional 30 days until August 4, 2007. Because August 4, 2007, falls on a Saturday, the final results will be due on August 6, 2007, the next business day. Dated: June 28, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–13122 Filed 7–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–803] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005–2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People’s Republic of China Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\06JYN1.SGM 06JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 129 (Friday, July 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36955-36959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13134]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-274-804]


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (``wire rod'') from 
Trinidad and Tobago for the period of review (``POR'') October 1, 2005, 
through September 30, 2006.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Mittal Steel Point 
Lisas Limited (``MSPL'') and its affiliates Mittal Steel North America 
Inc. (``MSNA'') and Mittal Walker Wire Inc. (collectively ``Mittal'') 
did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value 
(``NV'') (i.e., sales were made at de minimis dumping margins). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties.

[[Page 36956]]

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days 
after publication of the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5973 or (202) 482-3692, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 
Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (``Wire Rod Orders''). On October 2, 
2006, we published in the Federal Register the Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 57920.
    We received timely requests for review from petitioners\1\, and 
Mittal, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 27, 2006, 
we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review covering the period October 1, 2005, through 
September 30, 2006, naming Mittal as the respondent. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). On November 
29, 2006, we sent a questionnaire to Mittal.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc. (formerly Georgetown 
Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel 
Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North 
Star Steel Texas, Inc.
    \2\ Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and 
Merchandise
    Section B: Comparison Market Sales
    Section C: Sales to the United States
    Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value
    Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or Assembly Performed in 
the United States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mittal submitted its responses to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire on January 26, 2007, and to sections B through E on 
February 2, 2007. On March 1, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments 
on Mittal's questionnaire response.
    On April 18, 2007, the Department sent Mittal a supplemental 
questionnaire for sections A through C. We received the response to the 
supplemental questionnaire on May 2, 2007. We issued a supplemental 
questionnaire for section D on May 14, 2007, and received the response 
on June 11, 2007.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid 
cross-sectional diameter.
    Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted 
physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS'') definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) 
tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) 
concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free 
machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or 
more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 
percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 
0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more 
than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire 
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire 
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no 
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 
having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no 
deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon 
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 
04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a 
length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter 
of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing 
by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, 
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
    This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the 
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered 
to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that 
is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on 
the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) 
is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for 
purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the 
measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section 
measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This 
measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 
1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead 
quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after July 24, 2003. Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 
Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68 
FR 64079, 64081 (November 12, 2003).
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber 
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications

[[Page 36957]]

is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other 
interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other 
than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of 
such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the 
importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use 
of the imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope.
    The products under review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), all products produced by the respondent covered 
by the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold 
in Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like 
product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, 
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter 
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the 
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to 
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago 
were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices 
for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We 
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter 
outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP 
for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with 
the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made 
the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of 
the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the 
applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to 
reflect discounts and increased the prices to reflect billing 
adjustments.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland 
freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance, 
survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses 
from arrival to delivery.
    For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses 
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, 
and further manufacturing). In addition, we deducted indirect selling 
expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These 
expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by 
affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for 
profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets
    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
Mittal's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the 
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Mittal had 
an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
was viable.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which 
Mittal participated, the Department found that the respondent made 
sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 
69512 (November 16, 2005). Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department determined that there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Mittal made wire rod 
sales in Trinidad and Tobago at prices below the cost of production 
(``COP'') in this administrative review. As a result, we initiated a 
COP inquiry for Mittal.

1. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative expenses, packing expenses, and interest 
expense.

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices

    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales 
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing 
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.

3. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product

[[Page 36958]]

because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales 
were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring 
during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to 
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded 
below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the 
basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
    We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for 
inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In 
addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (``COS'') pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly 
linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to NV were claimed 
or allowed.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for 
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average 
costs.
D. Level of Trade
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP 
transaction. In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales 
(i.e., NV based on home market), 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).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
    In the home market, Mittal reported sales made through one LOT 
corresponding to one channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, 
Mittal reported two LOTs corresponding to two channels of distribution. 
Mittal made sales to an unaffiliated trading company and through its 
U.S. affiliates. We have determined that the sales made by Mittal 
directly to U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by Mittal's 
affiliated U.S. resellers constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have 
found that U.S. sales and home market sales were made at the same LOT. 
Accordingly, we did not find it necessary to make an LOT adjustment or 
CEP offset. For further explanation of our LOT analysis see the 
Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for Mittal Steel Point Lisas 
Limited from Dennis McClure and Stephanie Moore to the File, dated June 
29, 2007.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 
1, 2005, through September 30, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Producer/Manufacturer                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited....................        0.40[percnt]
                                                      (i.e., de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs limited 
to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days 
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a 
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide 
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any 
such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, within 
120 days of publication of these preliminary results. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rate

    The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 
Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the 
subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this 
administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates 
calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 
0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by 
applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. 
For assessment purposes, we calculate importer-specific assessment 
rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins 
for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the 
total entered value of the sales to that importer. The Department 
intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date 
of publication of the final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68

[[Page 36959]]

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification 
will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of 
review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews 
for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it 
sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 
exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the 
transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this 
clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or 
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total 
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
company's sales during the review period.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Mittal 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review, 
except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, 
the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, 
or the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 
and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod Orders.
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

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

    Dated: June 29, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-13134 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S