Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada, 62816-62820 [E7-21869]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62816-62820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21869]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-840]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and 
certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada for the period October 1, 
2005, to September 30, 2006 (the POR). We preliminarily determine that 
sales of subject merchandise by Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and 
Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) 
(collectively referred to as ``Ivaco'') have been made below normal 
value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties 
are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the 
final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this 
notice.
    The Department recently concluded a changed circumstance review in 
which it determined that, as of the publication of that final changed 
circumstance review, ``(1) Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is the 
successor-in-interest to Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P.; and (2) Sivaco 
Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., is the successor-
in-interest to Ivaco Inc. for antidumping duty cash deposit purposes.'' 
See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 72 FR 
15102 (March 30, 2007) (Ivaco Changed Circumstances Review). Sivaco 
Ontario (a Division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) was also identified 
as the successor-in-interest to Sivaco Ontario. See CBP Message Number 
7116210, April 26, 2007. The results of this administrative review, for 
cash deposit purposes, will apply to Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and 
to Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P). 
Assessment instructions issued subsequent to the final results would 
apply to unliquidated entries of not only Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. 
and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.), but 
also those of Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P., Ivaco Inc., and Sivaco Ontario.
    Note that Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. is referred to below as 
IRM, and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) is 
referred to below as Sivaco Ontario (even though ``Sivaco Ontario'' was 
the name of the predecessor company to Sivaco Ontario (a division of 
Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.)).

DATES: Effective Dates: November 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1131 or (202) 
482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel 
wire rod (steel wire rod) from Canada. See Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 67 FR 65944 
(October 29, 2002) (Order). On October 2, 2006, the Department issued a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order 
for the October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 POR. See Antidumping 
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 
2006). On October 31, 2006, Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec 
Inc.) (Mittal Canada) requested an administrative review of its entries 
that were subject to the antidumping duty order for this period. On 
that same date, the Department received a request from petitioners 
(Mittal Steel USA Inc.--Georgetown, Gerdau USA Inc., Nucor Steel 
Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky 
Mountain Steel Mills) for a review of Ivaco, Inc. and Ivaco Rolling 
Mills L.P. (which petitioners referred to collectively as ``Ivaco''). 
Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco 
Wire Group 2004 L.P., also requested a review of their entries. On 
November 27, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006).\1\ Mittal 
Canada subsequently withdrew its request for review, and the Department 
rescinded the administrative review with respect to Mittal Canada. See 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon 
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 72 FR 51408 (September 7, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department's initiation notice referenced the following 
companies: Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.); Ivaco 
Rolling Mills 2004 L.P.; and Sivaco Ontario Processing (a division 
of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.). The Department, for these 
preliminary results, is considering that a combined entity 
referenced as ``Ivaco'' encompasses the following: Ivaco Rolling 
Mills L.P.; Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P.; Ivaco, Inc.; Sivaco 
Ontario; and Sivaco Ontario (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 
L.P.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ivaco submitted a response to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire on January 16, 2007, and a response to sections B, C, and 
D of the Department's questionnaire on February 21, 2007. In response 
to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated June 8, 2007, 
Ivaco submitted a supplemental response for sections A, B, and C on 
July 13, 2007. In response to the Department's supplemental 
questionnaire dated September 12, 2007, Ivaco submitted a supplemental 
response, for sections A, B, C, and D on October 3, 2007. In response 
to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated October 10, 2007, 
Ivaco submitted a supplemental response, for section C on October 17, 
2007. On October 11, 2007, petitioners submitted comments regarding 
Ivaco's claims with respect to levels of trade and certain Ivaco costs, 
and, on October 19, 2007, Ivaco submitted a response to petitioners' 
comments on those issues.
    The Department is considering IRM and Sivaco Ontario as part of the 
same entity (referred to collectively in this notice as ``Ivaco''), 
consistent with the Department's treatment of these companies in 
previous proceedings. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
from Canada, 72 FR 26591 (May 10, 2007) and Ivaco Changed Circumstance 
Review, 72 FR 15102.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00

[[Page 62817]]

mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.
    Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted 
physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS'') definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) 
tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) 
concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free 
machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or 
more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 
percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 
0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more 
than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord 
quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod 
measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional 
diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 
70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no 
non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable 
inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation 
per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) 
having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater 
than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or 
less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the 
following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more 
of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or 
less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or 
less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium.
    Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire 
bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm 
in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the 
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered 
to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis--that 
is, the direction of rolling--of the rod) over thickness (measured on 
the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) 
is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for 
purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the 
measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section 
measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod.
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber 
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the 
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of 
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use 
certification for the importation of such products may be required. 
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally 
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope. The products subject to this order are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 
7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 
7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, export 
price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP), as defined in sections 
772(a) and 772(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of 
importation by the producer or exporter outside of the United States to 
an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under 
section 772(c) of the Act.
    Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after 
the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer 
or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    Ivaco made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for 
sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Ivaco to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We 
calculated a CEP for sales made by Ivaco after importation to the 
United States (where the merchandise was located at an unaffiliated 
processor facility or unaffiliated distributor warehouse at the time of 
sale).
    For EP sales, we made additions to the starting price (gross unit 
price), where appropriate, for freight revenue received by Ivaco 
(reimbursement by customers for freight charges paid by Ivaco) and for 
billing errors (debit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), and 
deductions, where appropriate, for billing adjustments (including 
credit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), early payment discounts 
and rebates, and movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland freight, 
warehousing expenses, and brokerage fees. For CEP sales, we made 
adjustments to the starting price as for the EP transactions described 
above. However, consistent with our treatment of these expenses in 
recent administrative reviews, we re-categorized freight from one 
unaffiliated processor in the United States to another unaffiliated 
processor in the

[[Page 62818]]

United States as further manufacturing costs. See Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; and Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 64921, 64923 (November 
6, 2006) (unchanged in final results, 72 FR 26591 (May 10, 2007)). In 
addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (imputed credit expenses and warranty 
expenses), imputed inventory carrying costs, and further manufacturing. 
Finally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted 
an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted under sections 
772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. See the October 31, 2007, Memorandum from 
Steve Bezirganian, Analyst, through Robert James, Program Manager, 
entitled ``Analysis Memorandum for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and 
Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (A-122-840)'' (Ivaco Analysis 
Memorandum).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is not a particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with sales to the United 
States. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will 
normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent 
of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
    We found that Ivaco had a viable home market for steel wire rod. 
See Ivaco Analysis Memorandum. Ivaco submitted home market sales data 
for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made 
adjustments as detailed in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on 
Comparison Market Prices'' section below.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding, we had reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product 
by the respondent were made at prices below the cost of production 
(COP) during the POR. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
from Canada, 70 FR 41681, 41684 (July 20, 2005) (unchanged in final 
results, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006)); and section 773(b) of the Act. 
Therefore, we required Ivaco to file a response to Section D of the 
Department's Questionnaire.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, 
fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondent to its 
home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., 
normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether 
such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the 
COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    We disregard below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at 
prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) 
of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average 
COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product 
were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the 
Act. We found that Ivaco made sales below cost and we disregarded such 
sales where appropriate.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We determined NV for Ivaco as follows. We made adjustments to the 
gross price to account for billing adjustments, and deducted discounts 
and rebates. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. We also deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically, we made adjustments for 
Ivaco's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred 
for home market sales (i.e., credit expenses and warranty expenses) and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses and warranty 
expenses). See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.410(c). Where we compared Ivaco's U.S. sales to home market sales 
of merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

D. Arm's-Length Sales

    The respondent reported sales of the foreign like product to 
affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to affiliated 
customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the 
prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price 
to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 
percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the 
unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the 
sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison 
Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Ivaco's sales to affiliated 
parties that were determined not to be at arm's length were disregarded 
in our comparison to U.S. sales.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be 
based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value 
(CV). Accordingly, for those models of steel wire rod for which we 
could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either 
because there were no sales of a comparable product or all

[[Page 62819]]

sales of the comparison products failed the COP test, we based NV on 
CV.
    Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the 
sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing expenses. We calculated the 
cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in 
the COP section of this notice. We based SG&A and profit on the actual 
amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For CEP and EP 
comparisons, we deducted direct selling expenses incurred for home 
market sales (i.e., credit expenses and warranty expenses). See Section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act; and 19 CFR 351.410(c). For EP sales, we 
added U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses and warranty 
expenses) to the NV.

F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine NV 
based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade 
(LOT) as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there 
are no sales at the same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to comparison 
market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is 
that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to determine whether comparison 
market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. 
The Department identifies the LOT based on: the starting price or 
constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for EP 
sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the 
Act (for CEP sales). If the comparison-market sales were at a different 
LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a 
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV 
is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export 
transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) 
of the Act.
    Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in 
LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, e.g. 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,, 62 FR 61731, 
61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
    Ivaco reported home market sales in two channels of distribution: 
(1) Direct sales by IRM and (2) direct sales by Sivaco Ontario. Ivaco 
reported U.S. EP sales in two channels of distribution: (1) Direct 
sales by IRM to U.S. customers and (2) direct sales by Sivaco Ontario 
to U.S. customers. Finally, Ivaco reported U.S. CEP sales in one 
channel of distribution: (1) Direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers made 
from the facilities of unaffiliated U.S. processors or unaffiliated 
U.S. warehouses. Ivaco claims that all of IRM's home market and U.S. 
sales are at one LOT, and that all of Sivaco's home market and U.S. 
sales are at another, more advanced, LOT. Ivaco states that the 
Department should calculate a LOT adjustment when sales by IRM are 
matched to sales by Sivaco. Ivaco also states that, if the Department 
determines that IRM's U.S. CEP sales are at a different LOT from all 
Ivaco's home market sales, the Department should grant a CEP offset.
    To determine whether there were multiple LOTs, we examined the 
selling functions performed by Ivaco for its customers. We found few 
differences in selling functions across the various channels of 
distribution and, based on this examination, we preliminarily determine 
that Ivaco sold merchandise at one LOT in both markets. See the October 
31, 2007 memorandum from Steve Bezirganian, through Robert James, to 
Richard Weible, ``Level of Trade Analysis for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 
L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.: 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (A-122-840).'' 
Consequently, there is no basis for calculating a level-of-trade 
adjustment or a CEP offset.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale, as provided by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margin exists for the period October 1, 
2005, through September 30, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                    Producer/exporter                     average margin
                                                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P............................            4.44
Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004                4.44
 L.P....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
calculations performed within five days of publication of this notice. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than five days after submission of case briefs. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a brief 
summary of the arguments, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, 
parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with 
an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on 
diskette. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of the Act.

Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue assessment instructions 
directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the publication of the 
final results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a). We will calculate 
importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered

[[Page 62820]]

value of the examined sales for that importer.\2\
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included 
in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did 
not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a 
reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United 
States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 
entries at the all-others rate if there was no rate calculated in this 
review for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment 
Policy Notice, 68 FR at 23954, for a full discussion of this 
clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
steel wire rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Ivaco will be the 
rates established in the final esults of this review, except if a rate 
is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis, the cash deposit 
will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 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, 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 merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 
percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect util publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entities 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.
    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ According to Ivaco, IRM served as the importer for almost 
all of the U.S. sales of IRM, and Sivaco Ontario served as the 
importer for all of the U.S. sales of Sivaco Ontario. Because IRM 
and Sivaco Ontario are considered part of the same entity, there is 
in effect only one importer, so only one importer-specific 
assessment rate has been calculated for application to entries 
imported by IRM or Sivaco Ontario. In addition, for several reported 
U.S. sales of IRM, Ivaco indicates it cannot identify the importer. 
Ivaco states these sales involved galvanized wire rod that was 
exported to the United States by the U.S. customer. Separate 
company-specific assessment rates have been calculated for 
application to entries associated with such transactions. See Ivaco 
Analysis Memorandum.

    Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-21869 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 35-DS-P[FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES]