Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of New Shipper Review, 62628-62630 [E7-21805]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
62628
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Notices
screws, rivets, welds or any other type
of fastener.6
On May 1, 2006, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
the ‘‘moon chair’’ was outside the scope
of the antidumping duty order because
it collapses rather than folds as a chair
subject to the order would fold, and it
does not have a back pad or seat pad
commonly found in folding chairs.
Moon chairs are described as containing
circular, fabric-padded, concave
cushions that envelope the user at
approximately a 105-degree reclining
angle. The fabric cushion is ringed and
supported by two curved 16-mm steel
tubes. The cushion is attached to this
ring by nylon fabric. The cushion is
supported by a 16-mm steel tube foursided rectangular cross-brace
mechanism that constitutes the moon
chair’s legs. This mechanism supports
and attaches to the encircling tubing
and enables the moon chair to be folded.
To fold the chair, the user pulls on a
fabric handle in the center of the seat
cushion of the chair.7
Continuation of Order
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
As a result of the determinations by
the Department and the ITC that
revocation of the AD order on folding
metal tables and chairs from the PRC
would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the AD order on
folding metal tables and chairs from the
PRC. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection will continue to collect
antidumping duty cash deposits at the
rates in effect at the time of entry for all
imports of subject merchandise. This
review covers imports from all
manufacturers and exporters of folding
metal tables and chairs from the PRC.
The effective date of continuation of
this AD order will be the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
this Continuation Notice. Pursuant to
section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the
Department intends to initiate the next
five-year review of this order not later
than September 2012.
This five-year or ‘‘sunset’’ review and
notice are in accordance with section
6 See ‘‘Final Scope Ruling of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
from the People’s Republic of China (A–570–868);
Spencer Gifts, LLC’’ (July 13, 2005).
7 See ‘‘Final Scope Ruling of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
from the People’s Republic of China (A–570–868);
Mac Industries (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Yinmao
International Trading Company, Ltd and Fujian
Zenithen Consumer Products Company Ltd.’’ (May
1, 2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:55 Nov 05, 2007
Jkt 214001
751(c) of the Act and published
pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–21798 Filed 11–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
October 29, 2007.
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Dates: November 6,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley,
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) 482–4243 or (202) 482–
4551, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On July 27, 2006, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published the initiation of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on folding
metal tables and chairs from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). On
July 11, 2007, the Department published
the preliminary results. See Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 37703
(July 11, 2007). This review covers the
period June 1, 2005, through May 31,
2006. The final results are currently due
by November 8, 2007.
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Review
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), the Department shall make a final
determination in an administrative
review of an antidumping duty order
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
within 120 days after the date on which
the preliminary results are published.
The Act further provides, however, that
the Department may extend that 120day period to 180 days after the
preliminary results if it determines it is
not practicable to complete the review
within the foregoing time period.
The Department finds that it is not
practicable to complete the final results
of the administrative review of folding
metal tables and chairs from the PRC
within the 120-day period due to
complex issues the parties have raised
regarding surrogate financial statements.
In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Act, the Department is extending
the time period for completion of the
final results of this review by 30 days to
150 days after the date on which the
preliminary results were published.
Therefore, the final results are now due
no later than December 7, 2007.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: October 29, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–21809 Filed 11–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–489–807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Turkey; Final Results of
New Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 10, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from
Turkey. This review covers one
producer/exporter of the subject
merchandise to the United States, Ege
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis
Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik). The period of
review (POR) is April 1, 2006, through
September 30, 2006.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made no
changes to the margin calculations.
Therefore, the final results do not differ
from the preliminary results. The final
weighted–average dumping margin for
Ege Celik is listed below in the section
entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2007.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM
06NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Notices
Irina
Itkin, 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) 482–0656.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey,’’ dated September 4, 2007, for
further discussion of our price and
quantity analysis.
For the final results, the Department
continues to find that Ege Celik’s sole
U.S. sale during the POR was a bona
fide commercial transaction.
Background
This new shipper review covers one
producer/exporter, Ege Celik. On
September 10, 2007, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order
on rebar from Turkey. See Notice of
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey, 72 FR 51598 (Sep. 10,
2007) (Preliminary Results).
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results of this review. In
October 2007, we received a case brief
with respect to the preliminary results
from the domestic industry (i.e., Gerdau
AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial
Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and
Nucor Corporation), and we received a
rebuttal brief with respect to the
preliminary results from Ege Celik.
Turkish Government Competition
Board’s Report
In this review, the domestic interested
parties submitted a report by the
Turkish Government Competition Board
(the Competition Board) regarding the
Turkish steel industry. The domestic
interested parties argued that this report
demonstrates that Ege Celik, as well as
the vast majority of the Turkish rebar
industry, engaged in anti–competitive
behavior prior to and during the POR by
colluding with other producers to
manipulate home market and export
prices and to suppress costs. As noted
in our preliminary findings with respect
to the Competition Board’s report, we
did not rely on the evidence or
conclusions in the Competition Board’s
report as the basis for any findings in
this review. Rather, we investigated
whether the facts during the POR would
cause us to dismiss reported home
market prices or costs within the
confines of U.S. antidumping duty law
and regulations. See the August 31,
2007, Memorandum from Shawn
Thompson, Irina Itkin, and Brianne
Riker to David M. Spooner, entitled
‘‘Preliminary Finding on Issues Related
to the Turkish Government Competition
Board’s Reports in Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey.’’ For purposes of the final
results, the domestic industry neither
provided any new arguments with
respect to the information on the record
pertaining to the Competition Board’s
report or the respondents’ reported
costs, prices, and affiliations that were
not already addressed in our
preliminary findings, nor commented
on specific sections of our preliminary
findings with which it disagreed.
Rather, the domestic industry merely
stated its opposition to our preliminary
findings and reiterated its previous
arguments. Therefore, we continue to
find that: 1) there is no basis to find that
Ege Celik is affiliated with any other
Turkish rebar producers; 2) there is no
basis to conclude that the sales and cost
data in this review are distorted by non–
market considerations and, thus, it is
appropriate to rely on this data for
purposes of the final results; and 3) Ege
Celik is entitled to a new shipper review
because it has met the requirements set
forth under 19 CFR 351.214(b). For
further discussion, see the Issues and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is
all stock deformed steel concrete
reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths
and coils. This includes all hot–rolled
deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,
rail steel, axle steel, or low–alloy steel.
It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii)
rebar that a processor has further
worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated
rebar. Deformed rebar is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
under item numbers 7213.10.000 and
7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written
description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2006, through
September 30, 2006.
Bona Fide Sale Analysis
In the preliminary results, we found
that Ege Celik’s reported U.S. sale
during the POR was a bona fide sale, as
required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c),
based on the totality of the facts on the
record. See the Memorandum to James
Maeder from Irina Itkin entitled,
‘‘Analysis of Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi
ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S.’s
Bona Fides As A New Shipper in the
New Shipper Review of Certain Steel
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:55 Nov 05, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62629
Decision Memorandum (Decision
Memo) at Comment 1.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, we conducted an investigation
to determine whether Ege Celik made
home market sales of the foreign like
product during the POR at prices below
its cost of production (COP) within the
meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
We performed the cost test for these
final results following the same
methodology as in the Preliminary
Results.
We found 20 percent or more of Ege
Celik’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 Ege Celik 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 these reviews, 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 these reviews 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 comments
received, we have made no changes to
the margin calculations. Because the
margin calculations for Ege Celik have
not changed from the preliminary
results, the preliminary calculations
placed on the record of this review are
adopted as the final margin calculations.
E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM
06NON1
62630
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 6, 2007 / Notices
cash deposit rate for merchandise
produced by Ege Celik Endustrisi ve
Ticaret A.S. and exported by Ege Dis
Ticaret A.S. will be the rate shown
above, except if the rate is less than 0.50
percent, de minimis within the meaning
Margin
of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter
Percentdeposit will be zero; 2) for previously
age
investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
Ege Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret
A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S. .......
0.00 the company–specific rate published for
the most recent period; 3) if the exporter
Assessment
is not a firm covered in this review, or
the less–than-fair–value (LTFV)
The Department shall determine, and
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries, in accordance established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the
with 19 CFR 351.212. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1), because we have the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit
reported entered value of Ege Celik’s
rate for all other manufacturers or
U.S. sale, we have calculated an
exporters will continue to be 16.06
importer–specific assessment rate based percent, the All Others rate established
on the ratio of the total amount of
in the LTFV investigation. These
antidumping duties calculated for the
deposit requirements, when imposed,
examined sale to the total entered value shall remain in effect until further
of that sale. We will instruct CBP to
notice.
assess antidumping duties on all
Notification to Importers
appropriate entries covered by this
review if the importer–specific
This notice serves as a preliminary
assessment rate calculated in the final
reminder to importers of their
results of this review is above de
responsibility, under 19 CFR
minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
regarding the reimbursement of
will instruct CBP to liquidate without
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
regard to antidumping duties any
entries for which the assessment rate is
of the relevant entries during this
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). review period. Failure to comply with
See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The
this requirement could result in the
Department intends to issue assessment Secretary’s presumption that
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
date of publication of these final results occurred and the subsequent assessment
of review.
of double antidumping duties.
The Department clarified its
This new shipper review is issued
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
and published in accordance with
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214(i).
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
Dated: October 31, 2007.
clarification will apply to entries of
Stephen J. Claeys,
subject merchandise during the POR
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
produced by Ege Celik for which it did
Administration.
not know its merchandise was destined
for the United States. In such instances, Appendix – Issues in Decision
we will instruct CBP to liquidate
Memorandum
unreviewed entries at the All–Others
General Issues
rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
Issues Related to the Turkish
the transaction.
Government Competition Board’s
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
weighted–average margin percentage
exists for the period April 1, 2006,
through September 30, 2006:
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of rebar from Turkey 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:55 Nov 05, 2007
Jkt 214001
Report
[FR Doc. E7–21805 Filed 11–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–489–807
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Turkey; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review and
Determination To Revoke in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 4, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review and
new shipper review of the antidumping
duty order on certain steel concrete
reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey.
These reviews cover six producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise to
the United States. The period of review
(POR) is April 1, 2005, through March
31, 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
margins for the reviewed firms are listed
below in the section entitled ‘‘Final
Results of Review.’’
Finally, we have determined to revoke
the antidumping duty order with
respect to Turkish rebar produced and
exported by Colakoglu Metalurji A.S.
and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively ‘‘Colakoglu’’) and Diler
Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S.,
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm
Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively ‘‘Diler’’).
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina
Itkin, 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) 482–0656.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
The administrative review covers the
following five producers/exporters:
Colakoglu; Diler; Ekinciler Demir ve
Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis
Ticaret A.S. (collectively ‘‘Ekinciler’’);
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and Kaptan
Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. and
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve
Ticaret A.S. (collectively ‘‘Kaptan’’).
The new shipper review covers one
producer/exporter, Kroman Celik
E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM
06NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62628-62630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21805]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results of New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of the new shipper review
of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing
bars (rebar) from Turkey. This review covers one producer/exporter of
the subject merchandise to the United States, Ege Celik Endustrisi ve
Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik). The period of review
(POR) is April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no
changes to the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results do not
differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping
margin for Ege Celik is listed below in the section entitled ``Final
Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2007.
[[Page 62629]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, 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) 482-0656.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This new shipper review covers one producer/exporter, Ege Celik. On
September 10, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping
duty order on rebar from Turkey. See Notice of Preliminary Results of
New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 72 FR 51598 (Sep. 10, 2007)
(Preliminary Results).
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of this
review. In October 2007, we received a case brief with respect to the
preliminary results from the domestic industry (i.e., Gerdau AmeriSteel
Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor
Corporation), and we received a rebuttal brief with respect to the
preliminary results from Ege Celik.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated,
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006.
Bona Fide Sale Analysis
In the preliminary results, we found that Ege Celik's reported U.S.
sale during the POR was a bona fide sale, as required by 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality of the facts on the record.
See the Memorandum to James Maeder from Irina Itkin entitled,
``Analysis of Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis
Ticaret A.S.'s Bona Fides As A New Shipper in the New Shipper Review of
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated September
4, 2007, for further discussion of our price and quantity analysis.
For the final results, the Department continues to find that Ege
Celik's sole U.S. sale during the POR was a bona fide commercial
transaction.
Turkish Government Competition Board's Report
In this review, the domestic interested parties submitted a report
by the Turkish Government Competition Board (the Competition Board)
regarding the Turkish steel industry. The domestic interested parties
argued that this report demonstrates that Ege Celik, as well as the
vast majority of the Turkish rebar industry, engaged in anti-
competitive behavior prior to and during the POR by colluding with
other producers to manipulate home market and export prices and to
suppress costs. As noted in our preliminary findings with respect to
the Competition Board's report, we did not rely on the evidence or
conclusions in the Competition Board's report as the basis for any
findings in this review. Rather, we investigated whether the facts
during the POR would cause us to dismiss reported home market prices or
costs within the confines of U.S. antidumping duty law and regulations.
See the August 31, 2007, Memorandum from Shawn Thompson, Irina Itkin,
and Brianne Riker to David M. Spooner, entitled ``Preliminary Finding
on Issues Related to the Turkish Government Competition Board's Reports
in Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey.'' For purposes
of the final results, the domestic industry neither provided any new
arguments with respect to the information on the record pertaining to
the Competition Board's report or the respondents' reported costs,
prices, and affiliations that were not already addressed in our
preliminary findings, nor commented on specific sections of our
preliminary findings with which it disagreed. Rather, the domestic
industry merely stated its opposition to our preliminary findings and
reiterated its previous arguments. Therefore, we continue to find that:
1) there is no basis to find that Ege Celik is affiliated with any
other Turkish rebar producers; 2) there is no basis to conclude that
the sales and cost data in this review are distorted by non-market
considerations and, thus, it is appropriate to rely on this data for
purposes of the final results; and 3) Ege Celik is entitled to a new
shipper review because it has met the requirements set forth under 19
CFR 351.214(b). For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (Decision Memo) at Comment 1.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether Ege Celik made home market sales of
the foreign like product during the POR at prices below its cost of
production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We performed the cost test for these
final results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary
Results.
We found 20 percent or more of Ege Celik'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 Ege
Celik 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 these reviews,
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
these reviews 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 comments received, we have made no changes
to the margin calculations. Because the margin calculations for Ege
Celik have not changed from the preliminary results, the preliminary
calculations placed on the record of this review are adopted as the
final margin calculations.
[[Page 62630]]
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage
exists for the period April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ege Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S.... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
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. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), because we have the reported entered value of Ege
Celik's U.S. sale, we have calculated an importer-specific assessment
rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sale to the total entered value of that
sale. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if the importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by Ege Celik for which it did not know its merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the All-Others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of rebar from Turkey 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 rate for merchandise
produced by Ege Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. and exported by Ege
Dis Ticaret A.S. will be the rate shown above, except if the rate is
less than 0.50 percent, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; 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
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 merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit
rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06
percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR
351.214(i).
Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum
General Issues
Issues Related to the Turkish Government Competition Board's Report
[FR Doc. E7-21805 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
