Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 43236-43245 [E7-15155]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 149 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43236-43245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-583-831


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from Taiwan with respect to three 
companies.\1\ There is only one respondent participating in this 
review, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far). The period of 
review (POR) is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department is preliminarily rescinding the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales made by Chia Far have been 
made below normal value (NV). We have preliminarily assigned a margin 
based on adverse facts available (AFA) to the remaining two 
respondents, PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PFP Taiwan) and Yieh Corp., because 
these companies were not

[[Page 43237]]

responsive to the Department's requests for information.If the 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 3, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3874.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999) 
(SSSSC Order). On July 3, 2006, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 
2006). On July 31, 2006, the petitioners\2\ submitted a timely letter 
requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the 
sales of SSSSC made during the POR by Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd., 
Chia Far, Chien Shing Stainless Co., China Steel Corporation, Emerdex 
Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc., Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc., 
Emerdex Group., Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd., PFP Taiwan, Ta 
Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd., Tang Eng Iron Works, Yieh Loong 
Enterprise Co., Ltd. (also known as Chung Hung Steel Co., Ltd.), Yieh 
Trading Corp. (also known as Yieh Corp.), Yieh Mau Corp., and Yieh 
United Steel Corporation, pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1). On August 30, 2006, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review covering each of these 15 
companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 
(Aug. 30, 2006) (Notice of Initiation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, United 
Auto Workers Local 3303 (formerly Butler Armco Independent Union), 
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco 
Independent Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In August 2006, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire 
to all of the companies for which a review was requested except the 
Emerdex companies (for further discussion of the Emerdex companies, see 
the section of this notice entitled ``Emerdex Companies,'' below). In 
August and September 2006, we received submissions from 10 companies 
indicating that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during 
the POR.
    Because we did not receive a response to the antidumping duty 
questionnaire from PFP Taiwan, on September 7, 2006, we re-issued the 
questionnaire to this company and requested that it submit a full 
response. Because PFP Taiwan also did not respond to the second 
questionnaire, we are assigning it a preliminary dumping margin based 
on AFA. For further discussion, see the ``Application of Facts 
Available'' section of this notice, below.
    On September 15, 2006, we received a response to section A of the 
questionnaire (i.e., the section covering general information) from 
Chia Far and on October 10, 2006, we received Chia Far's response to 
sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire (i.e., the sections covering 
home market sales, U.S. sales, and cost of production (COP)/constructed 
value (CV), respectively).
    We issued a supplemental questionnaire covering sections A through 
C to Chia Far on December 22, 2006. Chia Far responded to this 
questionnaire on January 16, 2007.
    On January 29, 2007, we obtained information from CBP indicating 
that Yieh Corp., one of the companies claiming to have no shipments of 
SSSSC to the United States during the POR, did in fact make U.S. 
shipments of subject merchandise. Consequently, on February 1, 2007, we 
requested that Yieh Corp. explain why it did not report the entries in 
question. On March 5, 2007, Yieh Corp. stated that its failure to do so 
was an oversight.
    On March 26, 2007, the Department postponed the preliminary results 
in this review until no later than July 31, 2007. See Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan; Notice of Extension of Time 
Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 14077 (Mar. 26, 2007).
    On March 30, 2007, we issued Chia Far a second supplemental 
questionnaire covering sections A through C, as well as a supplemental 
questionnaire covering section D. Chia Far responded to these 
questionnaires on April 20, 2007, and April 27, 2007, respectively.
    On May 22, 2007, we issued a second supplemental section D 
questionnaire to Chia Far.
    On May 24, 2007, we re-issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to 
Yieh Corp. and requested that it submit a full response. Because Yieh 
Corp. did not respond to this questionnaire, we are assigning it a 
preliminary dumping margin based on AFA. For further discussion, see 
the ``Application of Facts Available'' section of this notice, below.
    On June 7, 2007, we received Chia Far's response to the 
Department's second supplemental section D questionnaire.
    In June and July 2007, we conducted a verification of the sales and 
cost data reported by Chia Far. We have incorporated our sales 
verification findings in these preliminary results. However, because 
the cost verification was conducted too close to the preliminary 
results deadline, we were unable to take any findings from the cost 
verification into account here. We will consider these findings in our 
final results.

Period of Review

    The POR is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet 
and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by 
weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of 
chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip 
is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width 
and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise 
heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and 
strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, 
aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific 
dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.
    The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 
7219.33.00.20,

[[Page 43238]]

7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 
7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 
7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 
7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 
7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 
7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 
7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 
7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is 
dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: 1) sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled, 2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, 3) plate 
(i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm 
or more), 4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a prepared 
edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and 5) 
razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of 
stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in 
coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or 
less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and 
certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor 
blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain specialty 
stainless steel products described below. Flapper valve steel is 
defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, 
between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent 
molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel 
also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon 
of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. 
The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with 
inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for 
oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile 
strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 
270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 
590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty 
flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as Arnokrome III.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless 
steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 
percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its 
resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 
1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms 
per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most 
commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers 
and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The 
product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as 
Gilphy 36.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Gilphy 36 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 
percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as Durphynox 17.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Durphynox 17 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\6\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as GIN4 Mo. The second excluded stainless 
steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, 
carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and

[[Page 43239]]

0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. 
This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles 
per 100 square microns. An example of this product is GIN5 steel. The 
third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, 
with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 
percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This 
product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed 
after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, GIN6.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This list of uses is illustrated and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \7\ GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary grades of Hitachi 
Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Preliminary Rescission of Review

    As noted in the ``Background'' section, above, 10 respondents 
certified to the Department that they had no shipments/entries of 
subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. These 
companies are: 1) Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd.; 2) Chien Shing 
Stainless Co.; 3) China Steel Corporation; 4) Goang Jau Shing 
Enterprise Co., Ltd.; 5) Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd.; 6) Tang Eng 
Iron Works; 7) Yieh Loong Enterprise Co. Ltd.; 8) Yieh Mau Corp.; 9) 
Yieh Corp.; and 10) Yieh United Steel Corporation. The Department 
subsequently obtained CBP information consistent with the no-shipment 
claims made by each of these companies except Yieh Corp. See the June 
19, 2007, Memorandum to The File from Jill Pollack, Senior Analyst, 
entitled, ``CBP List of Exporters'' (the ``CBP Memo''). Because the 
evidence on the record does not indicate that these nine companies 
exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we 
preliminarily determine it is appropriate to rescind the review for 
these respondents. See Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 343 F. Supp 2d 1344, 1374 (2004). Therefore, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we 
are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Chain Chon 
Industrial Co., Ltd., Chien Shing Stainless Co., China Steel 
Corporation, Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ta Chen Stainless 
Pipe Co., Ltd., Tang Eng Iron Works, Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd, 
Yieh Mau Corp, and Yieh United Steel Corporation. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 63 FR 
35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998); Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part, 70 
FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005).
    Regarding the tenth company, Yieh Corp., CBP information indicated 
that this company may, in fact, have had shipments or entries of 
subject merchandise entered into the United States during the POR. See 
the CBP Memo. Based on the CBP information, on February 1, 2007, we 
requested that Yieh Corp. explain the entries at issue. In a response 
dated March 5, 2007, Yieh Corp. stated that it had inadvertently 
overlooked the shipments in question. As a result, on May 24, 2007, we 
afforded Yieh Corp. an additional opportunity to respond to the 
questionnaire. Yieh Corp. did not respond to this questionnaire. 
Because Yieh Corp. had shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, 
we are not rescinding the administrative review with respect to it. For 
further information, see the ``Application of Facts Available'' section 
of this notice.

Emerdex Companies

    The Department finds that it is appropriate to rescind the instant 
review with respect to the Emerdex Companies named by the petitioners 
in their review request because the Department found in the 2003-2004 
administrative review of this order that the Emerdex companies are U.S. 
entities. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 45521, 45524-45525 (Aug. 9, 2006) 
(unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 75504 (Dec. 15, 2006). We note that the petitioners in 
the instant review have not provided any additional information 
demonstrating that the Emerdex companies for which they have requested 
a review are located in Taiwan. Consequently, consistent with the 
Department's findings in the prior review, we are preliminarily 
rescinding this review with regard to the Emerdex companies.

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot 
be verified.
    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, in August 2006, 
the Department requested that the 12 companies subject to this review 
respond to the Department's questionnaire. The original deadline to 
file a response was September 1, 2006. One of these 12 companies, PFP 
Taiwan, did not respond to the Department's initial request for 
information. Subsequently, in September 2006, the Department issued a 
letter to this company affording it a second opportunity to submit a 
response to the Department's questionnaire. However, PFP Taiwan also 
did not respond to this second questionnaire. On July 31, 2007, the 
Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of 
the questionnaire to this company. See the July 31, 2007, Memorandum to 
the File from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, entitled, 
``Confirmation of Delivery of the Questionnaire in the 2005-2006 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from Taiwan.'' By failing to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, this company withheld requested information and 
significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because this company did not respond 
to the Department's questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds 
that the use of total facts available is warranted.
    Furthermore, one additional company, Yieh Corp., claimed that it 
made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR. However, according to data obtained from CBP, it appeared that 
Yieh Corp. may, in fact, have made shipments of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. On January 29, 2007, we placed copies 
of the entry documentation related to these shipments on the record of 
this proceeding. See the January 29, 2007, Memorandum to the File from 
Jill

[[Page 43240]]

Pollack, Senior Analyst, entitled, ``2005-2006 Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Entry Documents 
from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).''
    On February 1, 2007, we requested that Yieh Corp. explain why it 
did not report the entries in question. On March 5, 2007, Yieh Corp. 
responded by stating that it had inadvertently overlooked them. On May 
24, 2007, we informed Yieh Corp. that it was required to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire no later then June 7, 2007. Because Yieh 
Corp. did not respond to this questionnaire, we find that Yieh Corp. 
withheld requested information and significantly impeded the 
proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 
the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts 
available is warranted for Yieh Corp.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See also Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar 
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870 (SAA), 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore, 
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 
F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We preliminarily find 
that PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. did not act to the best of their 
abilities in this administrative review, within the meaning of section 
776(b) of the Act, because they could have responded to the 
Department's requests for information, but failed to do so. Therefore, 
an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise 
available with respect to these companies. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 
1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA information derived from: 1) The petition; 2) the final 
determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any 
other information placed on the record.
    The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among 
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final 
Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in 
Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (Nov. 7, 2006).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 21.10 
percent, which is the highest appropriate dumping margin from this or 
any prior segment of the proceeding. See section 776(b)(2) of the Act. 
This rate was the highest petition margin and was used as AFA in 
numerous antidumping duty administrative reviews of this order. See, 
e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 7519, 7521 (Feb. 13, 2006) (2003-2004 SSSSC from Taiwan).
    The Department notes that, while the highest dumping margin 
calculated during this or any prior segment of the proceeding is 36.44 
percent, this margin represents a combined rate applied to a channel 
transaction in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) segment of this 
proceeding, and it is based on ``middleman dumping'' by a different 
respondent. See Tung Mung Development Co. v. United States, 219 F. 
Supp. 2d 1333, 1345 (CIT 2002), aff'd 354 F. 3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 
2004). Where circumstances indicate that a particular dumping margin is 
not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine another more appropriate one as facts available. See Fresh 
Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest dumping margin for use as AFA 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense, resulting in an unusually high dumping margin). An 
AFA rate based on middleman dumping would be inappropriate to use here 
given that the record does not indicate that any of PFP Taiwan's or 
Yieh Corp.'s exports to the United States during the POR involved a 
middleman. Thus, consistent with previous reviews, the Department has 
continued to use as AFA the highest dumping margin from any segment of 
the proceeding for a producer's direct exports to the United States, 
without middleman dumping, which is 21.10 percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department, to the 
extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent 
sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is 
defined as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition that gave 
rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning 
the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies 
that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. As noted 
in F.Lii de Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino, S.p.A. v. United States, 
216 F.3d 1027, 1030 (2000), to corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information.
    The rate of 21.10 percent constitutes secondary information. To 
corroborate this rate, among other things, we compared it to the 
transaction-specific rates calculated for Chia Far and found it to be 
reliable and relevant for use in this administrative review. For the 
company-specific information used to corroborate this rate, see the 
July 31, 2007, memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior 
Analyst, entitled, ``Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available Rate for 
the Preliminary Results in the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
Taiwan.'' We find the 21.10 percent rate to be probative because it 
does not appear to be aberrational when compared to Chia Far's 
transaction-specific rates and no information has been presented to 
call into question the relevance of the rate. Thus, we find that the 
rate of 21.10 percent is sufficiently corroborated for purposes of the 
instant administrative review.

Affiliation

    During the first administrative review in this proceeding, the 
Department

[[Page 43241]]

found Chia Far and its U.S. reseller, Lucky Medsup Inc. (Lucky Medsup), 
to be affiliated by way of a principal-agent relationship. The 
Department primarily based its finding on: 1) A document demonstrating 
the existence of a principal-agent relationship; 2) Chia Far's degree 
of involvement in sales between Lucky Medsup and its customers; 3) 
evidence indicating Chia Far knew the identity of Lucky Medsup's 
customers, and the customers were aware of Chia Far; 4) Lucky Medsup's 
operations as a ``go-through'' who did not maintain any inventory or 
further manufacture products; and, 5) Chia Far's inability to provide 
any documents to support its claim that the document indicating a 
principal-agent relationship was not valid during the POR. See 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 
6682 (Feb. 13, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 23 (upheld by the Court of International Trade 
(CIT) in Chia Far Industrial Factory Co. Ltd. v. United States, et al., 
343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1356 (CIT 2004)). See also the July 31, 2007, 
memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, to the file 
entitled, ``Placing Information Regarding the Principal-Agent 
Relationship between Lucky Medsup Inc. and Chia Far Industrial Factory 
Co., Ltd. on the Record of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Taiwan.'' The Department continues to treat Chia Far and Lucky Medsup 
as affiliated parties.
    In the instant administrative review Chia Far contends that it is 
not affiliated with Lucky Medsup because: 1) there is no cross-
ownership between Chia Far and Lucky Medsup and no sharing of officers 
or directors; 2) Lucky Medsup's owner operates independently of Chia 
Far as a middleman; 3) Lucky Medsup's transactions with Chia Far are at 
arm's length; 4) there are no exclusive distribution contracts between 
Lucky Medsup and Chia Far (the one that existed in 1994 was terminated 
in 1995); and, 5) Lucky Medsup is not obligated to sell Chia Far's 
merchandise and Chia Far is not obligated to sell through Lucky Medsup 
in the United States.
    We, however, find the fact pattern in the instant review is not 
significantly dissimilar from that which existed in the previous 
antidumping duty administrative reviews, where the Department had found 
the parties to be affiliated. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682 (Feb. 13, 2002). First and 
foremost, Chia Far has not provided any documents in response to the 
Department's request that it demonstrate that the agency agreement was 
terminated and the principal-agent relationship no longer exists. See 
Chia Far's January 16, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at 
page 2. Furthermore, Chia Far's degree of involvement in Lucky Medsup's 
U.S. sales is similar to that found in prior reviews. Specifically, 
Chia Far knew the identity of the end-customers and of certain sales 
terms that the end-customers had requested before it set its price to 
Lucky Medsup, Lucky Medsup's sales order confirmation identifies Chia 
Far as the manufacturer, and Chia Far shipped the merchandise directly 
to the end-customers. See the the June 29, 2007, memorandum to the file 
from Shawn Thompson and Jill Pollack entitled, ``Verification of the 
Sales Response of Chia Far Industrial Factory Co. Ltd. (Chia Far) in 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils (SSSSC) from Taiwan'' at pages 8 and 9. Lastly, as was 
true in prior segments of this proceeding, during the instant POR Lucky 
Medsup did not maintain inventory or further manufacture SSSSC. 
Therefore, we continue to find that Chia Far is affiliated with Lucky 
Medsup by way of a principal-agent relationship. We invite comments 
from interested parties on this issue for consideration in the final 
results.

Identifying Home Market Sales

    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act defines NV as the price at which 
the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, 
offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home 
market), in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course 
of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade 
(LOT) as the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP). In 
implementing this provision, the CIT has found that sales should be 
reported as home market sales if the producer ``knew or should have 
known that the merchandise {it sold{time}  was for home consumption 
based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the 
sales.'' See Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. & Yieh United Steel Corp. 
v. United States, et al., 25 CIT 752, 783 (2001); citing INA Walzlager 
Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 251 (1997). Where a 
respondent has no knowledge as to the destination of subject 
merchandise, except that it is for export, the Department will classify 
such sales as export sales and exclude them from the home market sales 
database. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Plate Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea, 
58 FR 37176, 37182 (July 9, 1993).
    In its October 10, 2006, questionnaire response, Chia Far stated 
that it has reason to believe that some of the home market customers to 
whom it sold SSSSC during the POR may have exported the merchandise. 
Specifically, Chia Far indicated that it shipped some of the SSSSC it 
sold to home market customers during the POR to a container yard or 
placed the SSSSC in an ocean shipping container at the home market 
customer's request. Chia Far stated that, even though the merchandise 
was containerized or sent to a container yard, it could not prove the 
merchandise was exported to a third country, and therefore, it included 
those sales among its reported home market sales. Although Chia Far 
stated that it does not definitively know whether the SSSSC in question 
will be exported, the Department has preliminarily determined that, 
based on the fact that these sales were sent to a container yard or 
placed in a container by Chia Far at the request of the home market 
customer, Chia Far should have known that the SSSSC in question was not 
for consumption in the home market. Therefore, consistent with this 
determination, the Department has preliminarily excluded these sales 
from Chia Far's home market sales database.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    In order to determine whether Chia Far sold SSSSC to the United 
States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the EP and CEP 
of individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of 
the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. See 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as 
merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and 
produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject 
merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of 
the order that were produced by the same person and in the same country 
as the subject merchandise, and sold by Chia Far in the comparison 
market during the POR, to be foreign like products for the purpose of 
determining appropriate product

[[Page 43242]]

comparisons to SSSSC sold in the United States.
    During the POR, Chia Far sold subject merchandise and foreign like 
product that it made from hot- and cold-rolled stainless steel coils 
(products covered by the scope of the order) purchased from 
unaffiliated parties. Chia Far further processed the hot- and cold-
rolled stainless steel coils by performing one or more of the following 
procedures: cold-rolling, bright annealing, surface finishing/shaping, 
and slitting. We did not consider Chia Far to be the producer of the 
merchandise under review if it performed insignificant processing on 
the coils (e.g., annealing, slitting, surface finishing). See Stainless 
Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 74495 (Dec. 14, 2004) and the accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (listing painting, 
slitting, finishing, pickling, oiling, and annealing as minor 
processing for flat-rolled products). Furthermore, we did not consider 
Chia Far to be the producer of the cold-rolled products that it sold if 
it was not the first party to cold-roll the coils. The cold-rolling 
process changes the surface quality and mechanical properties of the 
product and produces useful combinations of hardness, strength, 
stiffness, and ductility. Stainless steel cold-rolled coils are 
distinguished from hot-rolled coils by their reduced thickness, tighter 
tolerances, better surface quality, and increased hardness which are 
achieved through cold-rolling. Chia Far's cold-rolling of the cold-
rolled coils that it purchased may have modified these characteristics 
to suit the needs of particular customers; however, it did not impart 
these defining characteristics to the finished coils. Thus, we 
considered the original party that cold-rolled the product to be its 
producer.

Product Comparisons

    The Department compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison 
market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from 
three months prior to the month in which the first U.S. sale was made 
until two months after the month in which the last U.S. sale was made. 
See 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2). Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise made in the comparison market in the ordinary course of 
trade, the Department compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making 
product comparisons, the Department selected identical and most similar 
foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by 
Chia Far in the following order of importance: grade, hot- or cold-
rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic coating, non-metallic coating, 
width, temper, and edge.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    The Department based the price of Chia Far's U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise on EP or CEP, as appropriate. Specifically, when Chia Far 
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based 
on the facts of the record, we based the price of the sale on EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. When Chia Far sold subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States through its 
U.S. affiliate, Lucky Medsup, we based the price of the sale on CEP, in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
    We revised Chia Far's reported U.S. sales data to take in account 
our findings at verification. For further discussion, see the the July 
31, 2007, memorandum to the file from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, 
``Sales Calculation Adjustments for Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., 
Ltd. (Chia Far) for the Preliminary Results'' (Chia Far Sales 
Calculation Memorandum).
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, international freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, 
and harbor maintenance fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. In addition, we found at verification that Chia Far incurred 
certificate-of-origin fees on some EP sales. Because Chia Far was not 
able to identify at verification on which transactions it incurred this 
expense, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, as facts available 
we are assigning this certificate-of-origin fee to all EP sales. For 
further discussion, see the Chia Far Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    We based CEP on packed prices sold to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland 
freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, container 
handling expenses, foreign harbor construction expenses, international 
freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. duty expenses, U.S. 
brokerage and handling expenses, other U.S. transportation expenses, 
and harbor maintenance fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted from CEP those selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct 
selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses, bank fees, and 
warranties), and indirect selling expenses. We recalculated Lucky 
Medsup's indirect selling expense ratio to include an amount for 
unreported pension expenses. For the details of this recalculation, see 
the Chia Far Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    In addition, we deducted from the CEP starting price an amount for 
CEP profit (profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 
772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) 
and 772(f) of the Act. We computed profit by deducting from the total 
revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, all 
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to the 
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the 
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and 
home markets.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability
    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 volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of 
Chia Far's home market sales of the foreign like product is more than 
five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product in the 
respondent's home market.
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 LOT as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are 
made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a 
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is 
a difference in the stages of marketing. Id. See also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 
1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to determine whether the 
comparison

[[Page 43243]]

market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the 
U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., 
the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of 
customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for 
each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than 
the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability 
(i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-33.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from Chia 
Far regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home 
market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by Chia Far for each channel of distribution. Chia 
Far reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to distributors, 
as well as CEP sales to Lucky Medsup. Chia Far reported identical 
selling activities for both channels of distribution. We examined the 
selling activities performed for these channels and found that Chia Far 
performed the following selling functions: 1) Price negotiation and 
communication with the customer; 2) arranging for freight and the 
provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (where necessary); 3) 
provision of general technical advice (where necessary) and quality 
assurance related activities; and 4) packing. These selling activities 
can be generally grouped into four core selling function categories for 
analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; and 3) 
inventory maintenance and warehousing; and, 4) warranty and technical 
support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that 
Chia Far performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, 
and warranty and technical support services for U.S. sales. Because 
Chia Far's selling activities did not vary by distribution channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the home market, Chia Far reported that it made 
sales to distributors and end users. We examined the selling activities 
performed for home market sales and found that Chia Far performed the 
following selling functions equally for sales to distributors and end 
users: 1) Price negotiation and communication with the customer; 2) 
arranging for freight (where necessary); 3) provision of general 
technical advice (where necessary) and quality assurance related 
activities; 4) packing; and, 5) post-sale warehousing/processing on 
request. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions described 
above, we find that Chia Far performed sales and marketing, freight and 
delivery services, warranty and technical support services, and 
inventory maintenance and warehousing for home market sales. 
Consequently, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the 
home market for Chia Far.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and home market 
customers do not differ significantly. Specifically, although Chia Far 
performed occasional warehousing and post-sale processing functions in 
the home market that it did not perform on sales to the United States, 
we do not find these differences to be material selling function 
distinctions significant enough to warrant a separate LOT. Thus, we 
determine that the NV LOT for Chia Far is the same as the U.S. LOT for 
Chia Far.
    Regarding the CEP-offset provision, as described above, it is 
appropriate only if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the 
CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability. Because we find 
that no difference in LOTs exists, we do not find that a CEP offset is 
warranted for Chia Far.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
    In the 2003-2004 administrative review, the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding as of the date of initiation of this review, 
the Department determined that Chia Far sold foreign like product at 
prices below the cost of producing the product and excluded such sales 
from the calculation of NV. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 46137, 46144 (Aug. 9, 
2005) (unchanged in 2003-2004 SSSSC from Taiwan). As a result, the 
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Chia Far 
made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs.

1. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each foreign 
like product sold by Chia Far during the POR, we calculated a weighted-
average COP based on the sum of the respondent's materials and 
fabrication costs, G&A expenses, and financial expenses. We made the 
following adjustments to Chia Far's cost data.
     1. We adjusted the reported product-specific costs of 
manufacturing to account for an unreconciled difference between the 
costs reported in Chia Far's submitted cost database and its audited 
financial statements.
     2. We revised Chia Far's G&A expense rate to include the company's 
year-end adjustments to raw material and work-in-process inventories.
     3. Because Chia Far had net financial income, we did not include 
an amount for financial expense in the calculation of COP. This is in 
accordance with the Department's practice of determining that, when a 
company earns enough financial income that it recovers all of its 
financial expense, that company did not have a resulting cost for 
financing during that period. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455, 26460 (May 5, 
2006) (unchanged in Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review in Part, 71 FR 65082 (Nov. 7, 2006)); and Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

[[Page 43244]]

Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 70 FR 73437 (Dec. 
12, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 
9 and 25.
     4. For the cost of SSSSC not produced by Chia Far, we used, as 
facts available, Chia Far's costs to produce merchandise with 
characteristics identical or similar to the characteristics of the 
merchandise not produced by Chia Far.
    For further information, see the July 31, 2007, memorandum to Neal 
M. Halper from Heidi Schriefer entitled, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - 
Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd.''

2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices

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

3. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Chia Far's sales of a given product were made at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Chia Far's sales of a given 
product were made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time (i.e., one year) pursuant to sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on our comparison of POR average 
costs to reported prices, we also determined, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that these sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. As a result, we disregarded the below-cost sales of 
that product.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
    We based NV for Chia Far on prices to unaffiliated customers in the 
home market. We revised Chia Far's reported home market sales data to 
take in account our findings at verification. For further discussion, 
see the Chia Far Sales Calculation Memorandum. We made deductions from 
the starting price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments and 
rebates. We also made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight expenses under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In 
addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in credit expenses, bank fees, 
and warranties.
    We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
Finally, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 
2006, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd................                1.43
PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.................................               21.10
Yieh Trading Corp./Yieh Corp........................               21.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    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. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit cases briefs not 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be 
filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case briefs or 
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each 
argument: 1) A statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the 
argument; and 3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone 
number; 2) the number of participants; and 3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this 
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review.
    For Chia Far, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the assessment rate is de minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final 
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:

[[Page 43245]]

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these 
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know 
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the ``All Others'' rate if there is no rate for the intermediary 
involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full 
discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) The cash deposit rate for each specific 
company listed above will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case no cash deposit will be required; 2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 12.61 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
investigation. See SSSSC Order, 64 FR at 40557. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

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

    Dated: July 27, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-15155 Filed 8-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S