Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Determination To Revoke in Part, 62630-62633 [E7-21808]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62630-62633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21808]


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

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

AGENCY: 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:

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

[[Page 62631]]

Sanayii A.S. and Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. 
(collectively ``Kroman'').
    On May 4, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper 
review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. See Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and 
Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part, 72 FR 25253 (May 4, 2007) 
(Preliminary Results).
    In August 2007, based on the information on the record, we 
preliminarily found that there is no evidence that the respondents in 
these reviews engaged in anti-competitive practices in Turkey during 
the POR, as alleged by the domestic industry (i.e., Gerdau AmeriSteel 
Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor 
Corporation). For further discussion, see the August 31, 2007, 
Memorandum from James Maeder, 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'' (the Competition 
Board memo). See also the ``Turkish Government Competition Board's 
Report'' section of this notice, below.
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of these 
reviews, as well as on the preliminary findings set forth in the 
Competition Board memo. In August 2007, we received case briefs with 
respect to the preliminary results from the domestic industry and four 
of the six respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kaptan), 
and we received rebuttal briefs with respect to the preliminary results 
from all parties participating in these administrative reviews. In 
addition, in September 2007, we received case briefs with respect to 
the preliminary findings in the Competition Board memo from the 
domestic industry, and we received rebuttal briefs from all 
respondents.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Order

    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, 2005, through March 31, 2006.

Determination To Revoke Order, in Part

    The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty 
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While 
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must 
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure 
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation 
requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit 
the following: 1) A certification that the company has sold the subject 
merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current review 
period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at less 
than NV in the future; 2) a certification that the company sold 
commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States 
in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and 3) an 
agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department 
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject 
merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of 
such a request, the Department will consider: 1) whether the company in 
question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period 
of at least three consecutive years; 2) whether the company has agreed 
in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any 
exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department 
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the 
subject merchandise at less than NV; and 3) whether the continued 
application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). See Sebacic Acid From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 67 FR 
69719, 69720 (Nov. 19, 2002).
    We have determined that the requests from Colakoglu and Diler meet 
all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria 
of subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show 
that Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar at not less than NV during the 
current review period. In addition, Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar at 
not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews in which 
they were involved (i.e., their dumping margins were zero or de 
minimis). See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; 
Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (Nov. 7, 2006) and Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in 
Part, 70 FR 67665, 67667 (Nov. 8, 2005). Also, we find that application 
of the antidumping duty order to Colakoglu and Diler is no longer 
warranted for the following reasons: 1) the companies had zero or de 
minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; 2) 
each company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the 
Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and 
3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping. Therefore, we find that Colakoglu and Diler qualify for 
revocation of the antidumping duty order on rebar under 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2). Accordingly, we are revoking the order with respect to 
subject merchandise produced and exported by Colakoglu, as well as with 
respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Diler. For 
further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision 
Memo) accompanying this notice at Comment 1.

Effective Date of Revocation

    This revocation applies to all entries of subject merchandise that 
are produced and exported by Colakoglu and Diler, and are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2006. 
The Department will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all 
such entries and will instruct U.S. Customer and Border Protection 
(CBP) to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department will 
further instruct CBP to refund with interest any cash deposits on 
entries made on or after April 1, 2006.

Bona Fide Sale Analysis

    In the preliminary results, we found that Kroman's reported U.S. 
sale during the POR was a bona fide sale, as required by 19 CFR 
351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c),

[[Page 62632]]

based on the totality of the facts on the record. See the Memorandum to 
James Maeder from Irina Itkin entitled, ``Analysis of Kroman Celik 
Sanayii A.S.'s Bona Fides As A New Shipper in the New Shipper Review of 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated April 30, 
2007, for further discussion of our price and quantity analysis.
    For the final results, the Department continues to find that 
Kroman's sole U.S. sale during the POR was a bona fide commercial 
transaction.

Turkish Government Competition Board's Report

    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 these reviews. 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 ``Competition Board Memo.'' 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 address in our preliminary findings, nor 
commented on specific sections of our preliminary findings with which 
it disagreed. Rather, we find that 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 the respondents are affiliated, and a collapsing analysis is 
neither warranted nor necessary; 2) there is no basis to conclude that 
the sales and cost data in these reviews are distorted by non-market 
considerations and, thus, it is appropriate to rely on this data for 
purposes of the final results; 3) Kroman is entitled to a new shipper 
review because it has met the requirements set forth under 19 CFR 
351.214(b); and 4) the use of adverse facts available, pursuant to 
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, is not warranted for any of the 
respondents in the administrative review or new shipper review because 
the respondents provided all requested information and have cooperated 
fully in these segments of the proceeding. For further discussion, see 
the Decision Memo at Comment 1.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, 
Kaptan, and Kroman made home market sales of the foreign like product 
during the POR at prices below their costs of production (COP) within 
the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test 
for these final results following the same methodology as in the 
Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the Decision Memo.
    We found 20 percent or more of each respondent'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 
Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman made below-cost 
sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded 
these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the 
basis for determining NV 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 certain 
changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the 
relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Because the margin calculations 
for Habas and Kaptan have not changed from the preliminary results, the 
preliminary calculations placed on the records of these reviews are 
adopted as the final margin calculations.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages 
exist for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                 Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S......    0.32 (de
                                                                minimis)
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ Yazici Demir      0.14 (de
 Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S./ Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.    minimis)
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./Ekinciler Dis Ticaret          1.66
 A.S........................................................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S........    0.22 (de
                                                                minimis)
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ Kaptan Metal         0.00
 Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S................................
Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S./ Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve             0.00
 Pazarlama A.S..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
for all sales made by Colakoglu, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman, as well as 
for certain sales made by Ekinciler, because we have the reported 
entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales.
    Moreover, for all sales by Diler, as well as for the remaining 
sales made by Ekinciler, these companies did not report entered values 
for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated 
importer-specific assessment rates for each respondent's merchandise by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for its U.S. sales to each 
importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. 
To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 
calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated 
entered value.
    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). The 
Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of these final results of review.

[[Page 62633]]

    Because we have revoked the order with respect to subject 
merchandise produced and exported by Colakoglu, as well as with respect 
to subject merchandise produced and exported by Diler, we will instruct 
CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after April 1, 2006, and to refund all cash deposits collected.
    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 companies included in these final results of review for 
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was 
destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to 
POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we 
are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, 
because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of 
subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. 
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 (except shipments from Colakoglu and 
Diler, as noted above) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of 
this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of 
the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be 
the rates 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 merchandise produced by Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S. 
and exported by Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S., the 
combination cash deposit rate will be 0.00 percent; 3) 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; 4) 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 5) 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

1. Issues Related to the Turkish Government Competition Board's (the 
Competition Board's) Report
2. Date of Sale for Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret 
A.S. (collectively ``Colakoglu'') and Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas)
3. Model Matching
4. Methodology for Determining Contemporaneous Sales in the Home Market

Company-Specific Issues

5. General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses for Colakoglu
6. Depreciation Expenses for Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and 
Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler'')
7. G&A Expenses for Ekinciler
8. Subcontracted Rolling Costs for Habas
9. Affiliation Issue for Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. and 
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Kaptan'')
10. Affiliated-Party Loading Services for Kaptan
[FR Doc. E7-21808 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S