Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 52079-52083 [E7-17993]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices Act’’), and section 351.214(i)(1) of the Department’s regulations, the Department shall issue preliminary results in a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated. The Act and regulations further provide, however, that the Department may extend that 180-day period to 300 days if it determines that this review is extraordinarily complicated. See 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2) and 751 (a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. The Department finds that this review is extraordinarily complicated and that it is not practicable to complete this new shipper review within the foregoing time period. Specifically, the Department must issue supplemental questionnaires to obtain additional information about (1) Ayecue’s complex methodology for allocating consumption rates of factors of production, and (2) the bona fides of its U.S. sale. In addition, the Department needs additional time to conduct verification of the submitted information. Accordingly, the Department finds that additional time is needed in order to complete these preliminary results. Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2) allow the Department to extend the deadline for the preliminary results to a maximum of 300 days from the date of initiation of the new shipper review. For the reasons noted above, we are extending the deadline for the completion of the preliminary results of this new shipper review to 300 days, i.e., from September 24, 2007, until no later than January 22, 2008.1 The deadline for the final results of this new shipper review continues to be 90 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and section 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). Dated: September 7, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–17999 Filed 9–11–07; 8:45 am] jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 1 January 21, 2008, is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which is a federal holiday. Therefore, the deadline for completing the preliminary results of this new shipper review shall be the next business day, January 22, 2008. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–810] Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2006 New Shipper Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 482–3853 and (202) 482–0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) of the Department of Commerce’s (Department) regulations require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated, and the final results of review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. However, if the Department determines that the issues are extraordinarily complicated, 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2) allow the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to up to 150 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. Background On September 26, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India for Ambica Steels Limited (Ambica), covering the period February 1, 2006, through July 31, 2006. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 71 FR 56105 (September 26, 2006). On July 17, 2007, the Department issued the preliminary results of review. The preliminary results were published on July 23, 2007. See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 72 FR 40113 (July 23, 2007). The final results for this review are currently due no later than October 15, 2007. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52079 Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the final results of a new shipper review if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire (dealing with sales and cost issues) to Ambica following the preliminary results, and the Department needs additional time to analyze Ambica’s response. In addition, the Department is planning to conduct a sales and cost verification of Ambica in September. As a result, the Department has determined that this review is extraordinarily complicated, and the final results of this new shipper review cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 90 days. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results by 60 days, until no later than December 14, 2007. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 5, 2007. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–17992 Filed 9–11–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–808] Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrativereview of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India in response to a request from an interested party. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Mukand Limited. The period of review is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that Mukand Limited made sales at less than normal value. The Department of Commerce intends to rescind the administrative review AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 52080 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices with respect to Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. See ‘‘Intent to Rescind Administrative Review’’ section below. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of each issue and a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Callen, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–0180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Background On October 20, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel wire rods (wire rods) from India. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). On December 1, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping duty order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006). On December 29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Mukand Limited (Mukand), a producer and exporter, requested an administrative review under section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), of the antidumping duty order on wire rods from India. On December 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce received a request to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India from Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Sunflag). On February 2, 2007, in accordance with 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of this order. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007). The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. We are conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 Intent to Rescind Administrative Review Sunflag also requested a new–shipper review, which we initiated on March 20, 2007. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New–Shipper Review, 72 FR 13088 (March 20, 2007). Because we are proceeding with the new–shipper review and because the administrative review covers entries during the same period of time as the new–shipper review, we intend to rescind the administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j). Scope of the Order The merchandise under review is wire rods, which are hot–rolled or hot– rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only manufactured by hot–rolling and are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross section. The majority of wire rods sold in the United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and pickled. The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter. The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 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 merchandise subject to the order is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the review. Comparison–Market Sales In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of wire rods in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of the respondent’s home–market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Mukand’s quantity of sales in the home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market.Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities of the comparison– market (i.e., India) and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 by the respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determined that Mukand’s home market was viable during the POR. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S.-price sales. Export Price We calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because Mukand sold the merchandise to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. We based export price on the packed, delivered, duty unpaid price to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. No other adjustments were claimed. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the scope of the order which were produced and sold by Mukand in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to wire rods sold in the United States. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison market within the contemporaneous window period. Mukand had only one entry of subject merchandise during the POR and on January 29, 2007, Mukand sought permission to report only home– market sales it made during the period July 2005 through December 2005, which covers the three months preceding and two months after this entry. We agreed to this request. See letter from Laurie Parkhill to Mukand dated February 26, 2007. Because there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to Mukand’s U.S. sale, we compared its U.S. sale to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making product comparisons, we defined identical and most similar foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices Mukand in the following order of importance: grade, diameter, and type of final finishing operation. For more information, page 2 of memorandum entitled ‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for Mukand’’ dated August 30, 2007 (Prelim Memo). jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Cost of Production In the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which Mukand participated, we disregarded certain sales made by Mukand in the home market that failed the cost test and we excluded such sales from the calculation of normal value. See 69 FR 29923 (May 26, 2004). Therefore, consistent with Section 773 (b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act we are conducting a cost–ofproduction investigation of Mukand’s home–market sales. On January 29, 2007, Mukand sought permission to report cost–of-production data for the prior POR (December 1, 2004 - November 30, 2005) because the U.S. sale at issue involved merchandise that entered the United States during the current POR but was produced and shipped to the United States during the prior period. We agreed to that request. See letter from Laurie Parkhill to Mukand dated March 9, 2007. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the cost of production (COP) based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home–market sales and COP information provided by Mukand in its questionnaire responses, including its home–market and COP data bases. See Mukand’s March 15, 2007, June 15, 2007, and July 30, 2007, responses and accompanying data bases. We relied on the COP data submitted by Mukand, except for the changes identified below: 1. Under section 773(f)(3) of the Act (i.e., the ‘‘Major Input Rule’’), we increased Mukand’s reported cost of direct materials based on the difference between its affiliated supplier’s cost of grade 201 and 410 billets and the transfer prices charged to Mukand for such billets. 2. We increased Mukand’s general and administrative expense ratio to include ‘‘exceptional’’ expenses recognized in Mukand’s financial statements for fiscal year 2004–2005. See Prelim Memo at 2. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested home–market sales of the foreign like product to determine if they were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. The home–market prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, discounts, and indirect selling expenses. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of Mukand’s sales of a given product were 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 within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of Mukand’s sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below–cost sales of that product because we determined that the below–cost sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted– average COPs for the POR, we determined that these below–cost sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See Prelim Memo. Consequently, we disregarded Mukand’s below–cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, in accordance with 773(b)(1) of the Act. Normal Value We based normal value for Mukand on the prices of the foreign like products sold to its comparison–market customers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to export price, we made circumstance–ofsale adjustments by deducting home– market direct selling expenses incurred on home–market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal value. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on sales at the same level PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52081 of trade as the export price. See the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section below. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined normal value based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade as the export– price sales. The normal value level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales in the home market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For export price sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market. To determine whether normal value sales are at a different level of trade than the export- price sales, the Department examines stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison–market sales are at a different level of trade than the export– price sales and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested by a pattern of consistent price differences between comparison–market sales at the normal value level of trade and comparison–market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, the Department makes a level–of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In determining whether Mukand made sales at different levels of trade, we obtained information from Mukand regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and home–market sales, including a description of the selling activities it performed for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same, the selling functions and activities of the seller at each level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar. In the home market, Mukand reported four levels of trade: sales to end–user via an agent, sales to end–users without an agent, sales to traders without an agent, and sales to traders with an agent. See Mukand’s questionnaire response, dated March 15, 2007 (Mukand Response), at B–20. Mukand reported five channels of distribution: sales to traders or end–users, sales to distributors through a del credre agent E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 52082 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES (similar to a consignment agent except that Mukand and agent finalize price with customer and Mukand ships directly to the customer), sales to end– users through consignment agents, sales through ‘‘stock yards’’ (i.e., warehouses) with an agent and sales through warehouses without an agent. See Mukand Response at A–7–8. We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities associated with sales reported by Mukand to its five channels of distribution in the home market, and where appropriate, to distinct customer categories within these channels. We found that for sales to traders or end– users, sales to distributors through a del credre agent, and sales to end–users through consignment agents (distribution channels 1, 2, and 3), Mukand provided similar selling activities with respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services and, therefore, sales to these three channels constituted one distinct level of trade. We found that for sales through warehouses with an agent and sales through warehouses without an agent (distribution channels 4 and 5) Mukand provided similar selling activities with respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services and, therefore, sales to these two channels constituted another, distinct level of trade. Based upon our overall analysis in the home market, we found that these two levels of trade constituted two different levels of trade. Mukand reported one export–price sale through one channel of distribution. To the extent practicable, we compare normal value at the same level of trade as the sale to the United States. The export–price level of trade is similar to the first level of trade in the home market (channels 1, 2, and 3) with respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services. The export– price level of trade differed from the second level of trade in the home– market (channels 4 and 5) with respect to freight, delivery, and warehousing. We matched the export–price sale to a home–market sale at the same level of trade and did not make a level–of-trade adjustment. Currency Conversion Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 weighted–average dumping margin on stainless steel wire rods from India for the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006, for Mukand Limited is 11.56 percent. Public Comment We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Also, interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in the Federal Register. See section 751(c)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1). Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an importer–specific assessment rate for these preliminary results of review. Where the importer– specific assessment rate is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent ad valorem or greater), we will instruct CBP to assess the importer–specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were entered by the importer or sold to the customer. After 15 days of publication of the final results of review, the Department will issue instructions to CBP directing it to assess the final assessment rates (if above de minimis) PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 uniformly on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer or sold to the relevant customer during the POR. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by Mukand where Mukand did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash–Deposit Requirements The following cash–deposit requirements will be effective 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)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash–deposit rate for Mukand will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except that if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 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, a prior review, or the less–than-fair value (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 subject merchandise; and (4) the cash–deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 48.80 percent, which is the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash–deposit rates, 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)(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 occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. September 4, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–17993 Filed 9–11–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) received timely requests to conduct new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating new shipper reviews for Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Bon Ten’’) and Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Mu Si’’). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Hua Lu, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482–6478, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department received timely requests from Bon Ten and Mu Si on July 27, 2007, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), in their requests for new shipper reviews, Bon Ten and Mu Si certified that they did not export wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’); that since the initiation of the investigation they have never been affiliated with any company that exported subject jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 merchandise to the United States during the POI; and that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Bon Ten and Mu Si submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) the date on which they first shipped wooden bedroom furniture for export to the United States; (2) the volume of their first shipment; and (3) the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted customs queries to confirm that the shipment of Bon Ten and Mu Si had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry date in the customs database by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’). We note that although Bon Ten and Mu Si submitted documentation regarding the volume of their shipments and the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States, our customs query shows that Bon Ten’s and Mu Si’s shipments entered the United States shortly after the anniversary month. Under 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the period of review (‘‘POR’’), but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended unless it would be likely to prevent the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department=s regulations. The preamble to the Department=s regulations states that both the entry and the sale should occur during the POR, and that under ‘‘appropriate’’ circumstances the Department has the flexibility to extend the POR. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27319–27320 (May 19, 1997). In this instance, Bon Ten’s and Mu Si’s shipments entered in the month following the end of the POR. The Department does not find that this delay prevents the completion of the review within the time limits set by the Department=s regulations. Initiation of New Shipper Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we find that Bon Ten’s and Mu Si’s requests meet the initiation threshold requirements and we are initiating new shipper reviews for shipments of wooden bedroom furniture produced and exported by Bon Ten and Mu Si. See Memoranda to the File through Wendy J. Frankel, Director, New Shipper Initiation Checklist, dated August 31, 2007. The Department will PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52083 conduct these new shipper reviews according to the deadlines set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the POR for a new shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semi–annual anniversary month, will be the sixmonth period immediately preceding the semi–annual anniversary month. As discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214 (f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after the normal POR, the POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper reviews of Bon Ten and Mu Si is January 1 through July 31, 2007. It is the Department’s usual practice, in cases involving non–market economies, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country–wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company’s export activities. Accordingly, we will issue questionnaires to Bon Ten and Mu Si, including a separate–rate section. The reviews will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Bon Ten and Mu Si are not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to their exports of wooden bedroom furniture. However, if Bon Ten or Mu Si does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, it will be deemed not separate from other companies that exported during the POI, and its new shipper review will be rescinded. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond or other security under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of wooden bedroom furniture produced and exported by Bon Ten and Mu Si must continue to post cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise (i.e., wooden bedroom furniture) at the PRC–wide entity rate of 216.01 percent. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are issued in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52079-52083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17993]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-808]


Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an 
administrativereview of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
wire rods from India in response to a request from an interested party. 
The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Mukand Limited. The period 
of review is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. We have 
preliminarily determined that Mukand Limited made sales at less than 
normal value.
    The Department of Commerce intends to rescind the administrative 
review

[[Page 52080]]

with respect to Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. See ``Intent to Rescind 
Administrative Review'' section below. We invite interested parties to 
comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in 
this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of 
each issue and a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Callen, AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 20, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel wire 
rods (wire rods) from India. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). 
On December 1, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this 
antidumping duty order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006).
    On December 29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), 
Mukand Limited (Mukand), a producer and exporter, requested an 
administrative review under section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act), of the antidumping duty order on wire rods from 
India. On December 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce received a 
request to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel wire rods from India from Sunflag Iron & Steel 
Co., Ltd. (Sunflag). On February 2, 2007, in accordance with 751(a) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published in the Federal Register 
a notice of initiation of administrative review of this order. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 
2007).
    The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2005, through November 
30, 2006. We are conducting this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751(a) of the Act.

Intent to Rescind Administrative Review

    Sunflag also requested a new-shipper review, which we initiated on 
March 20, 2007. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review, 72 FR 13088 (March 
20, 2007). Because we are proceeding with the new-shipper review and 
because the administrative review covers entries during the same period 
of time as the new-shipper review, we intend to rescind the 
administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j).

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise under review is wire rods, which are hot-rolled or 
hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons 
or other shapes, in coils. Wire rods are made of alloy steels 
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent 
or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are 
only manufactured by hot-rolling and are normally sold in coiled form, 
and are of solid cross section. The majority of wire rods sold in the 
United States are round in cross-section shape, annealed, and pickled. 
The most common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter.
    The wire rods subject to this order are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 
7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 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 
merchandise subject to the order is dispositive of whether or not the 
merchandise is covered by the review.

Comparison-Market Sales

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales of wire rods in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis 
for calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of the 
respondent's home-market sales of the foreign like product to its 
volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Act. Mukand's quantity of sales in the home 
market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. 
market.Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities of the 
comparison-market (i.e., India) and U.S. sales and absent any 
information that a particular market situation in the exporting country 
did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of 
the foreign like product sold by the respondent in the exporting 
country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of 
the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determined that Mukand's home market was 
viable during the POR. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal 
value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like 
product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the 
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to 
the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S.-price 
sales.

Export Price

    We calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act because Mukand sold the merchandise to the unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States prior to importation. We based export price on the 
packed, delivered, duty unpaid price to the unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
No other adjustments were claimed.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the scope of the order which were produced and sold 
by Mukand in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products 
for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to wire 
rods sold in the United States. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in 
the comparison market within the contemporaneous window period. Mukand 
had only one entry of subject merchandise during the POR and on January 
29, 2007, Mukand sought permission to report only home-market sales it 
made during the period July 2005 through December 2005, which covers 
the three months preceding and two months after this entry. We agreed 
to this request. See letter from Laurie Parkhill to Mukand dated 
February 26, 2007.
    Because there were no contemporaneous sales of identical 
merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of 
trade to compare to Mukand's U.S. sale, we compared its U.S. sale to 
sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary 
course of trade. In making product comparisons, we defined identical 
and most similar foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by

[[Page 52081]]

Mukand in the following order of importance: grade, diameter, and type 
of final finishing operation. For more information, page 2 of 
memorandum entitled ``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India - Preliminary Results 
Analysis Memorandum for Mukand'' dated August 30, 2007 (Prelim Memo).

Cost of Production

    In the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which 
Mukand participated, we disregarded certain sales made by Mukand in the 
home market that failed the cost test and we excluded such sales from 
the calculation of normal value. See 69 FR 29923 (May 26, 2004). 
Therefore, consistent with Section 773 (b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act we are 
conducting a cost-of-production investigation of Mukand's home-market 
sales.
    On January 29, 2007, Mukand sought permission to report cost-of-
production data for the prior POR (December 1, 2004 - November 30, 
2005) because the U.S. sale at issue involved merchandise that entered 
the United States during the current POR but was produced and shipped 
to the United States during the prior period. We agreed to that 
request. See letter from Laurie Parkhill to Mukand dated March 9, 2007.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
cost of production (COP) based on the sum of the costs of materials and 
fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the 
selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and 
expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we 
used the home-market sales and COP information provided by Mukand in 
its questionnaire responses, including its home-market and COP data 
bases. See Mukand's March 15, 2007, June 15, 2007, and July 30, 2007, 
responses and accompanying data bases. We relied on the COP data 
submitted by Mukand, except for the changes identified below:
    1. Under section 773(f)(3) of the Act (i.e., the ``Major Input 
Rule''), we increased Mukand's reported cost of direct materials based 
on the difference between its affiliated supplier's cost of grade 201 
and 410 billets and the transfer prices charged to Mukand for such 
billets.
    2. We increased Mukand's general and administrative expense ratio 
to include ``exceptional'' expenses recognized in Mukand's financial 
statements for fiscal year 2004-2005. See Prelim Memo at 2.
    After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we tested home-market sales of the foreign like product to 
determine if they were made at prices below the COP within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
The home-market prices were exclusive of any applicable movement 
charges, billing adjustments, discounts, and indirect selling expenses. 
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent 
of Mukand's sales of a given product were 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 within an 
extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of Mukand's sales of 
a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-
cost sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time, pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act 
and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs 
for the POR, we determined that these below-cost sales were made at 
prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See 
Prelim Memo. Consequently, we disregarded Mukand's below-cost sales and 
used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, in 
accordance with 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Normal Value

    We based normal value for Mukand on the prices of the foreign like 
products sold to its comparison-market customers. When applicable, we 
made adjustments for differences in packing and movement expenses in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made 
adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, we made 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 
comparisons to export price, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments 
by deducting home-market direct selling expenses incurred on home-
market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal 
value. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 
normal value on sales at the same level of trade as the export price. 
See the ``Level of Trade'' section below.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determined normal value based on sales in the 
home market at the same level of trade as the export-price sales. The 
normal value level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales 
in the home market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, 
the starting price of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and 
profit. For export price sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the 
starting price of the sales to the U.S. market.
    To determine whether normal value sales are at a different level of 
trade than the export- price sales, the Department examines stages in 
the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of 
distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison-
market sales are at a different level of trade than the export-price 
sales and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested by 
a pattern of consistent price differences between comparison-market 
sales at the normal value level of trade and comparison-market sales at 
the level of trade of the export transaction, the Department makes a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 
(November 19, 1997).
    In determining whether Mukand made sales at different levels of 
trade, we obtained information from Mukand regarding the marketing 
stages for the reported U.S. and home-market sales, including a 
description of the selling activities it performed for each channel of 
distribution. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same, 
the selling functions and activities of the seller at each level should 
be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that levels of trade are 
different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and 
activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar.
    In the home market, Mukand reported four levels of trade: sales to 
end-user via an agent, sales to end-users without an agent, sales to 
traders without an agent, and sales to traders with an agent. See 
Mukand's questionnaire response, dated March 15, 2007 (Mukand 
Response), at B-20. Mukand reported five channels of distribution: 
sales to traders or end-users, sales to distributors through a del 
credre agent

[[Page 52082]]

(similar to a consignment agent except that Mukand and agent finalize 
price with customer and Mukand ships directly to the customer), sales 
to end-users through consignment agents, sales through ``stock yards'' 
(i.e., warehouses) with an agent and sales through warehouses without 
an agent. See Mukand Response at A-7-8.
    We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities 
associated with sales reported by Mukand to its five channels of 
distribution in the home market, and where appropriate, to distinct 
customer categories within these channels. We found that for sales to 
traders or end-users, sales to distributors through a del credre agent, 
and sales to end-users through consignment agents (distribution 
channels 1, 2, and 3), Mukand provided similar selling activities with 
respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services 
and, therefore, sales to these three channels constituted one distinct 
level of trade. We found that for sales through warehouses with an 
agent and sales through warehouses without an agent (distribution 
channels 4 and 5) Mukand provided similar selling activities with 
respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services 
and, therefore, sales to these two channels constituted another, 
distinct level of trade. Based upon our overall analysis in the home 
market, we found that these two levels of trade constituted two 
different levels of trade.
    Mukand reported one export-price sale through one channel of 
distribution. To the extent practicable, we compare normal value at the 
same level of trade as the sale to the United States. The export-price 
level of trade is similar to the first level of trade in the home 
market (channels 1, 2, and 3) with respect to sales process, freight 
services, and warehousing services. The export-price level of trade 
differed from the second level of trade in the home-market (channels 4 
and 5) with respect to freight, delivery, and warehousing. We matched 
the export-price sale to a home-market sale at the same level of trade 
and did not make a level-of-trade adjustment.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts 
expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as reported by 
the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin on stainless steel wire rods from India 
for the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006, for Mukand 
Limited is 11.56 percent.
    Public Comment
    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a hearing is requested, the 
Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed 
by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 
Also, interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). The Department 
will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the 
time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are 
requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a 
brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities cited. 
Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide 
the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the 
public version of such comments.
    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in 
the Federal Register. See section 751(c)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.213(h)(1).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an 
importer-specific assessment rate for these preliminary results of 
review. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis 
(i.e., 0.50 percent ad valorem or greater), we will instruct CBP to 
assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were entered by the 
importer or sold to the customer. After 15 days of publication of the 
final results of review, the Department will issue instructions to CBP 
directing it to assess the final assessment rates (if above de minimis) 
uniformly on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant 
importer or sold to the relevant customer during the POR.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to POR entries of 
subject merchandise produced by Mukand where Mukand did not know that 
its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, 
we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in 
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective 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)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash-deposit rate for Mukand will be the 
rate established in the final results of this review (except that if 
the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit 
will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
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, a prior review, or 
the less-than-fair value (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 subject merchandise; and (4) the 
cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be the ``all others'' rate of 48.80 percent, which is the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash-
deposit rates, 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)(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 
occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

[[Page 52083]]

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    September 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-17993 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S