Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 43598-43600 [E7-15204]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43598
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices
Antidumping duty proceeding
Period to be reviewed
Crown All Corporation.
Ferro-Alliages & Mineraux Inc.
Gather Hope International Co. Ltd.
GE Silicones (Canada).
Global Minerals (Canada).
Global Minerals Corp.
Hunan Provincial Import and Export Group Corp.
IMMECC Resources Inc.
Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd.
Lorbec Metals Ltd.
MPM Silicones, LLC.
Seaview Trading.
Transtrading House Ltd.
1 If one of the below-named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of silicon metal from PRC that have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporter is a part.
2 Some companies may appear to be listed twice, but there are two addresses provided in the administrative review requests for similar named
companies and, therefore, we are listing them separately.
Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective orders in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Instructions for filing such applications
may be found on the Department’s Web
site at https://www.trade.gov/ia/.
This initiation and notice are in
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Dated: July 31, 2007.
James C. Doyle,
Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9.
[FR Doc. E7–15203 Filed 8–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
certain changes in the margin
calculations. Therefore, the final results
differ from the preliminary results. The
final weighted–average dumping margin
for the reviewed firm is listed below in
the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of
Review.’’ In addition, the Department
received information sufficient to
warrant a successor–in-interest analysis
in this administrative review. Based on
this information, we determine that
Enpar is the successor–in-interest to
Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. for
purposes of determining antidumping
duty liability.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2007.
Stainless Steel Bar from the United
Kingdom: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Kate
Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone (202) 482–4929 and (202)
482–4007, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 30, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar (SSB) from the United
Kingdom. See Stainless Steel Bar from
the United Kingdom: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 15106
(March 30, 2007) (Preliminary Results).
This review covers one producer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to
the United States. The period of review
(POR) is March 1, 2005, through
February 28, 2006.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
Background
This review covers one producer/
exporter, Enpar Special Alloys Limited
(formerly Firth Rixson Special Steels)
(Enpar). On March 30, 2007, the
Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSB from
the United Kingdom. See Preliminary
Results.
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results of review. On April
27, 2007, we received case briefs from
Enpar and Sandvik Bioline, a producer
of SSB from the United Kingdom. We
received a rebuttal brief from the
petitioners (i.e., Carpenter Technology
Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless,
Inc., and Electralloy Corporation, a
division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.) on May
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–412–822
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:38 Aug 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2, 2007. On April 30, 2007, Enpar
requested that the Department conduct
a public hearing, but withdrew its
hearing request on June 4, 2007. A
meeting was held with Enpar’s counsel
on June 20, 2007, to discuss issues
raised in Enpar’s case brief.
The Department has conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the term
‘‘stainless steel bar’’ includes articles of
stainless steel in straight lengths that
have been either hot–rolled, forged,
turned, cold–drawn, cold–rolled or
otherwise cold–finished, or ground,
having a uniform solid cross section
along their whole length in the shape of
circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles,
hexagons, octagons, or other convex
polygons. Stainless steel bar includes
cold–finished stainless steel bars that
are turned or ground in straight lengths,
whether produced from hot–rolled bar
or from straightened and cut rod or
wire, and reinforcing bars that have
indentations, ribs, grooves, or other
deformations produced during the
rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term
does not include stainless steel semi–
finished products, cut length flat–rolled
products (i.e., cut length rolled products
which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness
have a width measuring at least 10 times
the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in
thickness having a width which exceeds
150 mm and measures at least twice the
thickness), products that have been cut
from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate,
wire (i.e., cold–formed products in
coils, of any uniform solid cross section
along their whole length, which do not
conform to the definition of flat–rolled
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices
products), and angles, shapes and
sections.
The stainless steel bar subject to this
order is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7222.11.00.05,
7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05,
7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05,
7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and
7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Successor–In-Interest Analysis
We preliminarily determined that
Enpar is the successor–in-interest to
Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. Enpar
explained in its questionnaire response
that Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. was
a subsidiary of the U.K.-based Firth
Rixson Ltd. Firth Rixson Special Steels
Ltd. and two other subsidiaries of the
U.K.-based Firth Rixson Ltd., T.W.
Pearson and Enpar, were combined in
2003 to form Enpar. Enpar has the same
company registration number as that of
Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd., the
registered office is the same for both
companies, and three of Enpar’s four
directors were also directors of Firth
Rixson Special Steels Ltd. We
confirmed at verification that Enpar’s
business structure is the same as that of
Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd.
Although certain upgrades have been
made to the production facility, the
supplier and customer bases and
relationships remain the same. The only
real change is the name of the
subsidiary. Accordingly, we
preliminarily found that Enpar should
receive the same antidumping duty
treatment with respect to SSB as the
former Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd.
Since the Preliminary Results, no
party to this proceeding has commented
on this issue and we have found no
additional information that would
compel us to reverse our preliminary
finding. Thus, for purposes of these
final results, we continue to find that
Enpar is the successor–in-interest to
Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. for
purposes of determining antidumping
duty liability.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Period of Review
The POR is March 1, 2005, through
February 28, 2006.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, we conducted an investigation
to determine whether Enpar made home
market sales of the foreign like product
during the POR at prices below its costs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:38 Aug 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
of production (COP) within the meaning
of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We
performed the cost test for these final
results following the same methodology
as in the Preliminary Results, except as
discussed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum accompanying this notice
(the Decision Memo).
As a result of our cost test, we found
20 percent or more of Enpar’s sales of
a given product during the reporting
period were at prices less than the
weighted–average COP for this period.
Thus, we determined that these below–
cost sales were made in ‘‘substantial
quantities’’ within an extended period
of time and at prices which did not
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time in the
normal course of trade. See sections
773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act. Therefore,
for purposes of these final results, we
found that Enpar made below–cost sales
not in the ordinary course of trade.
Consequently, we disregarded these
sales and used the remaining sales as
the basis for determining normal value
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by
parties to this administrative review,
and to which we have responded, are
listed in the Appendix to this notice and
addressed in the Decision Memo, which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, room B–099,
of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/
. The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
certain changes in the margin
calculations. These changes are
discussed in the relevant sections of the
Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
weighted–average margin percentage
exists for the period March 1, 2005,
through February 28, 2006:
Manufacturer/Exporter
Enpar Special Alloys Ltd. (formerly Firth Rixson Special
Steels) .....................................
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Percent
Margin
34.35
43599
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The
Department will issue assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these
final results of review. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review if any importer–specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis (i.e., is not less than 0.50
percent). We calculated importer–
specific ad valorem duty assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of the examined
sales for that importer.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by the
company included in these final results
of review for which the reviewed
company did not know that the
merchandise it sold to the intermediary
(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or
exporter) was destined for the United
States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the ‘‘All Others’’ rate if there
is no rate for the intermediary involved
in the transaction. See Assessment
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this
clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of SSB from the United
Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of
the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the
reviewed company will be the rate
shown above; 2) for previously
investigated companies not listed above,
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 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
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
43600
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Notices
deposit rate for all other manufacturers
or exporters will be 83.85 percent, the
all–others rate established in the
Implementation of the Findings of the
WTO Panel in US--Zeroing (EC): Notice
of Determinations Under Section 129 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and
Revocations and Partial Revocations of
Certain Antidumping Duty Orders, 72
FR 25261 (May 4, 2007). These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility,
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
final results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: July 30, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix – Issues in Decision
Memorandum
Issues
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1. Average vs. Specific Material Costs
2. Calculation of Conversion Costs
3. Calculation of the All–Others Rate
[FR Doc. E7–15204 Filed 8–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–201–822
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Mexico; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
respondent ThyssenKrupp Mexinox
S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox S.A.) and
Mexinox USA, Inc. (Mexinox USA)
(collectively, Mexinox) and petitioners,1
the Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel sheet and strip in coils (S4 in coils)
from Mexico. This administrative
review covers imports of subject
merchandise from Mexinox S.A. during
the period July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006.
We preliminarily determine that sales
of S4 in coils from Mexico have been
made below normal value (NV). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of administrative review,
we will instruct United States Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties based on the
difference between the constructed
export price (CEP) and NV. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties who submit
argument in these proceedings are
requested to submit with the argument:
1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief
summary of the argument, and 3) a table
of authorities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maryanne Burke or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5604 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 27, 1999, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Mexico, 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). On
1 Petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation,
United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco
Independent Organization, Inc. and the United
Steelworkers of America.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:38 Aug 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
July 3, 2006, the Department published
a notice entitled Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 37890 (July 3, 2006), covering, inter
alia, S4 in coils from Mexico for the
period July 1, 2005 through June 30,
2006.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(1), Mexinox and petitioners
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review. On August 30,
2006, we published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review
covering the period July 1, 2005 through
June 30, 2006. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573
(August 30, 2006).
On September 13, 2006, the
Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to Mexinox. Mexinox
submitted its response to section A of
the questionnaire on October 13, 2006,
and its response to sections B through
E of the questionnaire on November 20,
2006. On March 9, 2007, the Department
issued its first supplemental
questionnaire for sections A through C.
Mexinox responded to this first
supplemental questionnaire on April 10,
2007. The Department also issued a
supplemental questionnaire for section
D on April 25, 2007, to which Mexinox
responded on May 21, 2007. On May 7,
2007, the Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire for sections
A through C, as well as for section E,
which pertains to an affiliated U.S.
reseller, Ken–Mac Metals (Ken–Mac).
Mexinox filed its response to this
second supplemental questionnaire on
May 21, 2007. Finally, the Department
issued a second supplemental
questionnaire covering section D on
June 26, 2007, to which Mexinox
responded on July 3, 2007.
Because it was not practicable to
complete this review within the normal
time frame, on February 20, 2007, we
published in the Federal Register our
notice of the extension of time limits for
this review. See Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Mexico;
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 7764
(February 20, 2007). This extension
established the deadline for these
preliminary results as July 31, 2007.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is July 1,
2005 through June 30, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 150 (Monday, August 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43598-43600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15204]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-412-822
Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 30, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from the United
Kingdom. See Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 15106 (March
30, 2007) (Preliminary Results). This review covers one producer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of
review (POR) is March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average
dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section
entitled ``Final Results of Review.'' In addition, the Department
received information sufficient to warrant a successor-in-interest
analysis in this administrative review. Based on this information, we
determine that Enpar is the successor-in-interest to Firth Rixson
Special Steels Ltd. for purposes of determining antidumping duty
liability.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4929 and (202) 482-4007, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This review covers one producer/exporter, Enpar Special Alloys
Limited (formerly Firth Rixson Special Steels) (Enpar). On March 30,
2007, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary
results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB
from the United Kingdom. See Preliminary Results.
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review.
On April 27, 2007, we received case briefs from Enpar and Sandvik
Bioline, a producer of SSB from the United Kingdom. We received a
rebuttal brief from the petitioners (i.e., Carpenter Technology
Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., and Electralloy
Corporation, a division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.) on May 2, 2007. On April
30, 2007, Enpar requested that the Department conduct a public hearing,
but withdrew its hearing request on June 4, 2007. A meeting was held
with Enpar's counsel on June 20, 2007, to discuss issues raised in
Enpar's case brief.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the term ``stainless steel bar''
includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been
either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise
cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along
their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals,
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other
convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless
steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire,
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other
deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e.,
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at
least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless
steel sheet, strip or plate, wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils,
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled
[[Page 43599]]
products), and angles, shapes and sections.
The stainless steel bar subject to this order is currently
classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50,
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45,
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description
of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Successor-In-Interest Analysis
We preliminarily determined that Enpar is the successor-in-interest
to Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. Enpar explained in its
questionnaire response that Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. was a
subsidiary of the U.K.-based Firth Rixson Ltd. Firth Rixson Special
Steels Ltd. and two other subsidiaries of the U.K.-based Firth Rixson
Ltd., T.W. Pearson and Enpar, were combined in 2003 to form Enpar.
Enpar has the same company registration number as that of Firth Rixson
Special Steels Ltd., the registered office is the same for both
companies, and three of Enpar's four directors were also directors of
Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. We confirmed at verification that
Enpar's business structure is the same as that of Firth Rixson Special
Steels Ltd. Although certain upgrades have been made to the production
facility, the supplier and customer bases and relationships remain the
same. The only real change is the name of the subsidiary. Accordingly,
we preliminarily found that Enpar should receive the same antidumping
duty treatment with respect to SSB as the former Firth Rixson Special
Steels Ltd.
Since the Preliminary Results, no party to this proceeding has
commented on this issue and we have found no additional information
that would compel us to reverse our preliminary finding. Thus, for
purposes of these final results, we continue to find that Enpar is the
successor-in-interest to Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. for purposes
of determining antidumping duty liability.
Period of Review
The POR is March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether Enpar made home market sales of the
foreign like product during the POR at prices below its costs of
production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We
performed the cost test for these final results following the same
methodology as in the Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice (the Decision
Memo).
As a result of our cost test, we found 20 percent or more of
Enpar's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at
prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we
determined that these below-cost sales were made in ``substantial
quantities'' within an extended period of time and at prices which did
not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time
in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the
Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that
Enpar made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade.
Consequently, we disregarded these sales and used the remaining sales
as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1)
of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in
the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which
is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records
Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed
in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage
exists for the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enpar Special Alloys Ltd. (formerly Firth Rixson Special 34.35
Steels)....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b). The Department will issue assessment instructions directly
to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of
review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this
review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., is not less than 0.50
percent). We calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the
examined sales for that importer.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these
final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know
that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the ``All Others'' rate if there is no rate for the intermediary
involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full
discussion of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of SSB from the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed
company will be the rate shown above; 2) for previously investigated
companies not listed above, 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
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
[[Page 43600]]
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 83.85
percent, the all-others rate established in the Implementation of the
Findings of the WTO Panel in US--Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations
Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations
and Partial Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261
(May 4, 2007). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 30, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum
Issues
1. Average vs. Specific Material Costs
2. Calculation of Conversion Costs
3. Calculation of the All-Others Rate
[FR Doc. E7-15204 Filed 8-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
