Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 40113-40117 [E7-14159]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 140 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40113-40117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-810]


Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting a new shipper review 
of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India 
manufactured and exported by Ambica Steels Limited (``Ambica''). In 
these preliminary results, we find that Ambica made sales of subject 
merchandise below normal value. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3853 
and (202) 482-0182, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel bar (``SSB'') from India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 
Stainless Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 
21, 1995).
    On August 31, 2006, the Department received a request from Ambica 
to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel bar from India. On September 26, 2006, the Department 
published in the Federal Register, a notice of initiation of a new 
shipper review of Ambica covering the period February 1, 2006, through 
July 31, 2006. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Initiation 
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 71 FR 56105 (September 26, 
2006).
    On September 26, 2006, the Department issued an antidumping

[[Page 40114]]

questionnaire to Ambica. We received responses on October 26, 2006, and 
November 29, 2006.
    On December 19, 2006, the petitioners\1\ alleged that Ambica made 
sales below the cost of production (``COP''). We found that the 
petitioners' allegation provided a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that sales by Ambica in the home market had been made at prices 
below the cost of production and initiated a sales below cost 
investigation on January 23, 2007. See Memorandum from Devta Ohri, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Susan Kuhbach, Senior Office 
Director, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, ``Petitioners' Allegation of 
Sales Below the Cost of Production for Ambica Steels Limited,'' dated 
January 23, 2007 (``Sales Below Cost Memorandum''). On January 24, 
2006, we requested that Ambica respond to the Section D cost of 
production section of the Department's original questionnaire. Ambica 
filed its response to Section D on February 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, 
Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 5, 2007, the Department published an extension of the time 
limit for the preliminary results of this new shipper review to no 
later than July 17, 2007. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2006 New 
Shipper Review, 72 FR 9732 (March 5, 2007).
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to Ambica in December 2006, 
March 2007, and April 2007. Ambica responded in December 2006 and May 
2007.

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means 
articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either 
hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-
finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their 
whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, 
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other 
convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or 
ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or 
from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have 
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the 
rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness 
have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm 
or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures 
at least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed products in 
coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, 
which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and 
angles, shapes, and sections.
    The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 
7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
    On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that 
SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel 
wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order. See 
Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, ``Antidumping Duty Orders 
on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 
India: Final Scope Ruling,'' dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in 
the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. See also Notice 
of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), we intend to verify the information provided by 
Ambica in September or October 2007.

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is February 1, 2006, through July 
31, 2006.

bona fide Analysis

    Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated whether 
the U.S. transaction reported by Ambica during the POR was a bona fide 
sale. Among the factors examined was the relationship between Ambica 
and its reported U.S. customer. Based on our investigation, we 
preliminarily determine that Ambica's sale was made on a bona fide 
basis. For our complete analysis, see Memorandum from Devta Ohri, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst to the File entitled, ``bona 
fide Nature of Ambica Steels Limited's Sales in the New Shipper Review 
for Stainless Steel Bar from India,'' dated July 17, 2007, on file in 
room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, all 
references to the Department of Commerce's regulations are to 19 CFR 
Part 351 (2007).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Ambica's sales of SSB to the United States 
were made at less than normal value (``NV''), we compared export price 
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign-
like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section, 
below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market covered 
by the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be 
foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 
(C) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient 
volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for 
calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market 
sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise. For further details, see the ``Normal Value'' 
section, below.
    We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of 
contemporaneous sales made in the home market based on the following 
criteria: (1) General type of finish, (2) Grade, (3) Remelting, (4) 
Type of final finishing operation, (5) Shape, and (6) Size. Where there 
were no home market sales of foreign like product that were identical 
in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we 
compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the 
home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of 
priority.

[[Page 40115]]

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is defined as the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act, constructed export price (``CEP'') is the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 
States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of 
the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).
    For Ambica's sales to the United States, we used EP in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act because Ambica's merchandise was sold 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We 
calculated EP based on the packed cost, insurance, and freight 
(``CIF''), or delivered duty paid (``DDP'') price to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 
including domestic inland freight (plant/warehouse to port of exit), 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, brokerage 
and handling, and clearing house agent (``CHA'') expenses.

Duty Drawback

    Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that EP or CEP 
shall be increased by among other things, ``the amount of any import 
duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, 
or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the 
subject merchandise to the United States.'' The Department determines 
that an adjustment to U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is 
appropriate when a company can demonstrate: (1) that the ``import duty 
and rebate are directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another;'' 
and (2) ``the company claiming the adjustment can show that there were 
sufficient imports of the imported raw materials to account for the 
drawback received on the exported product.'' Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. 
United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999).
    Ambica claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on its 
participation in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement Passbook 
Program. The Department finds that Ambica has not provided substantial 
evidence on the record to meet the requirement for the first prong of 
the two-prong test, by establishing the necessary link between the 
import duty and the reported duty drawback. Therefore, because Ambica 
has failed to meet the Department's requirements, we are denying 
Ambica's request for a duty drawback adjustment for the preliminary 
results. See Memorandum from Team to the File ``Preliminary Results 
Calculation Memorandum for Ambica Steels Limited,'' dated July 17, 2007 
(``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum'').

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product 
during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), 
we compared Ambica's volume of home market sales of the foreign-like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 
accordance with 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on Ambica's reported 
home market and U.S. sales quantities, we determine that the volume of 
aggregate home market sales during the POR is equal to or greater than 
five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, we find that Ambica had a 
viable home market. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales to 
unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. See 
19 CFR 351.412(c)(2); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to 
determine whether the comparison market sales were made at different 
stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the 
distribution system in each market (i.e., the ``chain of 
distribution''),\2\ including selling functions,\3\ class of customer 
(``customer category''), and the level of selling expenses for each 
type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the 
final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two 
may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to 
occur.
    \3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, in identifying levels 
of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either 
home market or third country prices),\4\ we consider the starting 
prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, et al., 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming 
this methodology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general 
and administrative expenses, and profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign-like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the 
EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different 
LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference 
in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Ambica reported that its customer base in the home market consists 
of processors, and in the U.S. market, it consists of distributors. See 
December 28, 2006 supplemental questionnaire response (``SQR'') at 
Annexure C (``Selling Functions Chart''). In addition, Ambica has 
reported two channels of distribution in the home market and one 
channel distribution in the U.S. market. See December 28, 2006 SQR at 
6. In the first channel of distribution in the home market, Ambica made 
sales directly to its home market customers from the factory. In the 
second channel of distribution in the home market, Ambica made sales 
directly to its home

[[Page 40116]]

market customers via Ambica's distribution warehouses. In Ambica's 
single channel of distribution to the U.S. market, Ambica made sales 
directly to its customer.
    Ambica reported a single LOT in both the home market and the U.S. 
market, and has not requested an LOT adjustment. Ambica stated that an 
LOT adjustment is not applicable because Ambica does not make any 
additional efforts for sales to either export markets or in the 
domestic market. See November 29, 2006 section B questionnaire response 
at 21, November 29, 2006 section C questionnaire response at 22; see 
also May 11, 2007 section A, B, C and D SQR at 17-18.
    We examined the information reported by Ambica regarding the type 
and level of selling functions performed, and customer categories. 
Specifically, we considered the extent to which, for instance, sales 
process/marketing support, freight/delivery, inventory maintenance, and 
quality assurance/warranty service varied with respect to the different 
customer categories and channels of distribution (i.e., distributors 
and processors) across the markets.
    We preliminary find the LOTs for the home market channels of 
distribution similar with regard to sales and marketing, and quality 
assurance/warranty service. We note some differences with regard to 
freight and warehousing in the home market channels of distribution and 
intend to issue a supplemental questionnaire to Ambica to further 
clarify the extent of the selling activities in these particular 
selling functions. However, based on the current record of this 
proceeding, for purposes of these preliminary results, we consider the 
home market to constitute a single LOT. We compared the U.S. LOT to the 
LOT reported for sales in the home market. We found the LOT in the 
United States to be similar to the LOT in the home market. Thus, we 
preliminarily have compared U.S. sales to home market sales at the same 
LOT.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    As discussed above, the petitioners provided a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that sales by Ambica in the home market had been 
made at prices below the cost of production (``COP'') within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act and we initiated a sales below 
cost investigation on January 23, 2007. See Sales Below Cost 
Memorandum.

1. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum 
of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign-
like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (``G&A'') 
expenses, interest expenses, and the cost of all expenses incidental to 
placing the foreign-like product packed and in a condition ready for 
shipment, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    Ambica reported its costs based on the period January through June 
2006, rather than the POR (February 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006). We 
have relied on Ambica's submission for these preliminary results, but 
we intend to seek Ambica's POR costs in a supplemental questionnaire.
    We made the following adjustment to Ambica's reported cost:
     We adjusted Ambica's straightening and finishing costs for 
cold-rolled products to include the actual conversion costs of Unit II 
incurred during the cost reporting period.
See Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum.

2. Test of Home Market Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP figures for the POR to the home market sales of the 
foreign-like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to 
determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. The 
prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges and indirect 
selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales 
made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made: 
(1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities; and 
(2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time.

3. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices 
below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also 
determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. If so, we disregard the below-
cost sales.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of 
Ambica's home market sales were at prices less than the COP. Further, 
the prices at which the merchandise under review was sold did not 
provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. 
See sections 773 (b)(2)(B), (C), and (D). Therefore, we disregarded 
these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We relied on Ambica's submitted home market sales information, 
except for the following adjustment:
     We excluded from the home market sales database those 
sales which Ambica made to domestic customers which were ultimately 
destined for export.
See Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum.
    We are not making any adjustment for discounting charges, bank 
commissions, and postal charges that Ambica may have paid on letter of 
credit sales in the home market. Ambica has not requested an adjustment 
for these expenses for the preliminary results and the supporting 
documentation provided by Ambica at Annexure E of the May 2, 2007 SQR 
does not tie to the home market sales database. We will address this 
issue further in a supplemental questionnaire.
    We calculated NV based on ex-factory prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the home market. We made adjustments for packing expenses 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We also made 
adjustments, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for 
inland freight from plant to the distribution warehouse, warehouse 
expenses, inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the customer, and 
inland insurance. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in 
circumstances of sale (``COS''), in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred on home market sales (i.e., imputed credit expenses (offset by 
the addition of interest revenue), and commissions) and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses, commissions, 
and fumigation expenses). See Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum.

[[Page 40117]]

Preliminary Results of Review

    We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period 
February 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambica Steels Limited...............................               22.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are 
filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit 
cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. Parties who submit briefs in these proceedings should 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days 
after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 
Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested 
parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3). The Department will 
issue the final results of this new shipper review within 90 days from 
the issuance of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
period of review produced by the respondent for which it did not know 
its merchandise 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 intermediate company(ies) involved in 
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all 
shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Ambica will 
be the rate established in the final results of this new shipper review 
(except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin 
is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) if the exporter is not 
a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or 
the original less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this review, a previous review, or the original LTFV investigation, 
but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the 
merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers 
and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall be 12.45 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Bar from India, 59 FR 66915, (December 28, 1994). These requirements, 
when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Interested Parties

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

    Dated: July 17, 2007.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-14159 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S