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
<![CDATA[
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: https://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
