Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico, 62820-62824 [E7-21870]

Download as PDF 62820 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices 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. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES 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of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of steel wire rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Ivaco will be the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 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 importerspecific 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 companyspecific assessment rates have been calculated for application to entries associated with such transactions. See Ivaco Analysis Memorandum. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:26 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 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. 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 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–201–830] Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) from Mexico for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Hylsa Puebla, S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Hylsa’’) made sales at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price (‘‘EP’’) and NV. DATES: Effective Dates: November 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff or Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1009 or (202) 482–8362, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002). On October 2, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 2006). On October 31, 2006, we received a request for review from petitioners,1 with respect to Hylsa and Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Sicartsa’’). This review was requested in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 27, 2006, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). On December 28, 2006, petitioners withdrew their request for a review of Sicartsa pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On May 25, 2007, we published in the Federal Register the notice of rescission for Sicartsa; see Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 29300 (May 25, 2007). On February 5, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section A response to the Department’s December 8, 2006, initial questionnaire. On February 12, 2007, Hylsa submitted its sections B–C response to the Department’s initial questionnaire. On June 11, 2007, Hylsa submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the 1 The petitioners are Mittal Steel USA Inc., Gerdau USA Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (collectively ‘‘the petitioners’’). E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Department’s May 4, 2007, questionnaire for sections A–C. On September 6, 2007, Hylsa submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department’s August 23, 2007, questionnaire for sections A–C. On September 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the Department’s September 10, 2007, questionnaire for sections A–C. On February 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section D response to the Department’s December 7, 2007, questionnaire. On July 16, 2007, Hylsa submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department’s June 18, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On September 13, 2007, Hylsa submitted its second questionnaire response to the Department’s August 23, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On October 10, 2007, Hylsa submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the Department’s October 3, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On March 30, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments with respect to Hylsa. On May 17, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fourth administrative review from July 3, 2007, to October 31, 2007. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 27801 (May 17, 2007). Scope of Review 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 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. This grade 1080 tire cord quality VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 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 decarborization 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. This 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 decarborization 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 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 62821 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. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. 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, enduse 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 under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.2 Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), all products produced by the respondents covered by the description 2 Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/ tariff_chapters_current/toc.html. E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 62822 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices in the ‘‘Scope of Review’’ section, above, and sold in Mexico during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product or constructed value (‘‘CV’’): grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of wire rod from Mexico were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Export Price For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when constructed export price was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We based EP on the packed cost-insurance-freight (‘‘CIF’’), ex-factory, free-on-board (‘‘FOB’’), or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign brokerage, handling and loading charges, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to the customer) and insurance. We also adjusted EP for billing adjustments. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2) and in keeping with our practice, we added interest, freight, and other revenue (i.e., Mexican and U.S. brokerage and handling) where applicable. See, e.g., Light-Walled VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 69 FR 19400, 19406 (April 13, 2004); unchanged in LightWalled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 69 FR 53677 (September 2, 2004). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Hylsa’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Hylsa had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. Arm’s-Length Test Hylsa reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated end-users and affiliated resellers. The Department calculates the NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at arm’s-length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm’s-length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department’s current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm’s-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c); see also Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). Conversely, where sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm’slength test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. Id. Some of Hylsa’s sales did not pass the arm’s-length test and were excluded from the NV calculation. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 C. Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’) Analysis 1. Calculation of COP Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of Hylsa, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the respondents’ comparison market sales were made below the COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We adjusted Hylsa’s reported general and administrative expenses to account for certain costs. The Department normally includes these costs in the calculation of COP. See October 31, 2007, memorandum to the file, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Hylsa Puebla S.A. de C.V.’’ from Gina K. Lee, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weightedaverage COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with the statute and the Department’s practice, we determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. We also adjusted the gross unit price for billing adjustments and interest revenue. See section 773(b) of the Act; see also Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 25063, 25066 (May 5, 2004); unchanged in Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731 (November 8, 2004). 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for Hylsa, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the October 31, 2007, memorandum to the file, ‘‘Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Hylsa S.A. de C.V.’’ (‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hylsa’’) from Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst, Office of AD/CVD Operations III, available in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) Import Administration, Washington, DC, HCHB Building, Room B for our calculation methodology and results. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We calculated the starting price taking into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment discounts. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, and inland insurance. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.402, we added interest revenue, where applicable. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance of sale (‘‘COS’’) adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses, and warranty expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. Sales of wire rod purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same manner described above in the ‘‘Export Price’’ section of this notice. E. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the EP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’slength) customers. If the comparisonmarket 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. In its questionnaire response, Hylsa did not claim a LOT adjustment. See Hylsa’s Section A questionnaire response dated February 12, 2007, at page 29. Moreover, based on our analysis of the facts of this administrative review, we preliminarily determine that there is no substantial difference in the selling functions between the sales on which NV is based and the export transactions. All of Hylsa’s U.S. sales are reported as EP sales. Thus, we have matched EP sales to sales in the home market without regard to level of trade and made no level of trade adjustment. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of Hylsa’s LOT findings for these preliminary results, see page 3 of the October 31, 2007, calculation memorandum for Hylsa. Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 62823 Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Hylsa ..................................... Margin (percent) 17.78 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. 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, or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. After 41 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific ad valorem rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. The total customs value is based on the entered value reported for each importer for all U.S. entries of subject merchandise purchased during the POR for consumption in the United States. E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1 62824 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Notices Notification to Importers 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 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 administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Cash Deposit Requirements pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES 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 the companies included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed companies did not know their 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 or companies involved in the transaction. Dated: October 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–21870 Filed 11–6–07; 8:45 am] To calculate the cash deposit rate for Hylsa in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins by the total net value for this company’s sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the 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 final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results 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 20.11 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico, 67 FR 55800 (August 30, 2002). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–274–804] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: SUMMARY: On July 6, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty (AD) administrative review on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Trinidad and Tobago. This review covers one producer of subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 36955 (July 6, 2007) (Preliminary Results). Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the Final Results of Review section. DATES: Effective Dates: November 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482– 5973, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 6, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the AD order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. See Preliminary Results. This review covers imports of wire rod from Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited and its affiliates Mittal Steel North America (MSNA) and Walker Wire (Ispat) Inc. (collectively Mittal) during the POR, October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On August 6, 2007, we received a case brief from the petitioners: ISG Georgetown Inc., Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. On August 10, 2007, we extended Mittal’s deadline for submitting its rebuttal brief. On August 13, 2007, we received Mittal’s rebuttal brief. 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 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. This 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 E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM 07NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62820-62824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21870]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-830]


Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department 
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod 
(``wire rod'') from Mexico for the period of review (``POR'') October 
1, 2005, through September 30, 2006.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Hylsa Puebla, S.A. 
de C.V. (``Hylsa'') made sales at less than normal value (``NV''). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties equal to the 
difference between the export price (``EP'') and NV.

DATES: Effective Dates: November 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff or Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, Room 1870, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1009 or (202) 482-8362, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico; see Notice 
of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and 
Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002). On October 2, 2006, the 
Department published in the Federal Register the notice of Antidumping 
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 
2006).
    On October 31, 2006, we received a request for review from 
petitioners,\1\ with respect to Hylsa and Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas 
Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (``Sicartsa''). This review was requested in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are Mittal Steel USA Inc., Gerdau USA Inc., 
Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, 
Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (collectively ``the 
petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 27, 2006, we published the notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 1, 
2005, through September 30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006).
    On December 28, 2006, petitioners withdrew their request for a 
review of Sicartsa pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On May 25, 2007, 
we published in the Federal Register the notice of rescission for 
Sicartsa; see Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: 
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 29300 (May 25, 2007).
    On February 5, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section A response to the 
Department's December 8, 2006, initial questionnaire. On February 12, 
2007, Hylsa submitted its sections B-C response to the Department's 
initial questionnaire. On June 11, 2007, Hylsa submitted its 
supplemental questionnaire response to the

[[Page 62821]]

Department's May 4, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On September 
6, 2007, Hylsa submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response 
to the Department's August 23, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On 
September 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its third supplemental 
questionnaire response to the Department's September 10, 2007, 
questionnaire for sections A-C.
    On February 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section D response to the 
Department's December 7, 2007, questionnaire. On July 16, 2007, Hylsa 
submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's 
June 18, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On September 13, 2007, 
Hylsa submitted its second questionnaire response to the Department's 
August 23, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On October 10, 2007, 
Hylsa submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the 
Department's October 3, 2007, questionnaire for section D.
    On March 30, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments with respect 
to Hylsa. On May 17, 2007, the Department published a notice extending 
the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fourth 
administrative review from July 3, 2007, to October 31, 2007. See 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Extension of Time 
Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 27801 (May 17, 2007).

Scope of Review

    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 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. This 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 decarborization 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.
    This 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 
decarborization 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. This 
measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 
1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead 
quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
    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 under review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS 
numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://
hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/toc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), all products produced by the respondents covered 
by the description

[[Page 62822]]

in the ``Scope of Review'' section, above, and sold in Mexico during 
the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have 
relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
comparison-market sales of the foreign like product or constructed 
value (``CV''): grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, 
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter 
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the 
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to 
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of wire rod from Mexico were made in the 
United States at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated 
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual 
U.S. transactions.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was 
sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly 
to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation and when constructed export price was not otherwise 
warranted based on the facts on the record. We based EP on the packed 
cost-insurance-freight (``CIF''), ex-factory, free-on-board (``FOB''), 
or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for 
exportation to, the United States.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland 
freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign 
brokerage, handling and loading charges, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. 
inland freight expenses (freight from port to the customer) and 
insurance. We also adjusted EP for billing adjustments.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2) and in keeping with our 
practice, we added interest, freight, and other revenue (i.e., Mexican 
and U.S. brokerage and handling) where applicable. See, e.g., Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 69 FR 19400, 19406 (April 13, 2004); unchanged in 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 69 FR 53677 (September 
2, 2004).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
Hylsa's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the 
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Hylsa had an 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that 
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

B. Arm's-Length Test

    Hylsa reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated end-
users and affiliated resellers. The Department calculates the NV based 
on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price 
to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are 
made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., 
sales at arm's-length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these 
sales were made at arm's-length, we compared the starting prices of 
sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement 
charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance 
with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an 
affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the 
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or 
most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the 
sales to be at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c); see also 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course 
of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). Conversely, where 
sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all 
sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV 
calculation. Id. Some of Hylsa's sales did not pass the arm's-length 
test and were excluded from the NV calculation.

C. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

1. Calculation of COP
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of 
Hylsa, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the 
respondents' comparison market sales were made below the COP. We 
calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We adjusted Hylsa's 
reported general and administrative expenses to account for certain 
costs. The Department normally includes these costs in the calculation 
of COP. See October 31, 2007, memorandum to the file, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results--Hylsa Puebla S.A. de C.V.'' from Gina K. Lee, 
Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had 
been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In 
accordance with the statute and the Department's practice, we 
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also 
subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. We also adjusted the 
gross unit price for billing adjustments and interest revenue. See 
section 773(b) of the Act; see also Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Turkey: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To 
Revoke in Part, 69 FR 25063, 25066 (May 5, 2004); unchanged in Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: Final Results, Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination 
Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731 (November 8, 2004).
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of

[[Page 62823]]

sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not 
disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined 
that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such 
sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' See section 
773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period 
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because 
they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we 
compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such 
sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for Hylsa, for purposes of this 
administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given 
product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the October 31, 
2007, memorandum to the file, ``Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for 
Hylsa S.A. de C.V.'' (``Calculation Memorandum for Hylsa'') from 
Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst, Office of AD/CVD Operations III, 
available in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') Import Administration, 
Washington, DC, HCHB Building, Room B for our calculation methodology 
and results.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to 
comparison market customers. We calculated the starting price taking 
into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment 
discounts. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made 
deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for handling, 
loading, inland freight, and inland insurance. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.402, we added interest revenue, where applicable. In accordance 
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing 
costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In 
addition, we made circumstance of sale (``COS'') adjustments for direct 
expenses, including imputed credit expenses, and warranty expenses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for 
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average 
costs.
    Sales of wire rod purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated 
producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same 
manner described above in the ``Export Price'' section of this notice.

E. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade 
as the EP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at 
the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a 
different LOT.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market 
sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. 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.
    In its questionnaire response, Hylsa did not claim a LOT 
adjustment. See Hylsa's Section A questionnaire response dated February 
12, 2007, at page 29. Moreover, based on our analysis of the facts of 
this administrative review, we preliminarily determine that there is no 
substantial difference in the selling functions between the sales on 
which NV is based and the export transactions. All of Hylsa's U.S. 
sales are reported as EP sales. Thus, we have matched EP sales to sales 
in the home market without regard to level of trade and made no level 
of trade adjustment.
    For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of 
Hylsa's LOT findings for these preliminary results, see page 3 of the 
October 31, 2007, calculation memorandum for Hylsa.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period 
October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hylsa...................................................           17.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days 
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a 
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide 
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any 
such comments on diskette. 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, or at a hearing, within 
120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rate

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. After 41 days of 
publication of the final results of this administrative review, if any 
importer-specific ad valorem rates calculated in the final results are 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on appropriate entries. The total customs value is based on the 
entered value reported for each importer for all U.S. entries of 
subject merchandise purchased during the POR for consumption in the 
United States.

[[Page 62824]]

    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 the companies included in these preliminary results for 
which the reviewed companies did not know their 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 or companies involved in the 
transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for Hylsa in this administrative 
review, we divided the total dumping margins by the total net value for 
this company's sales during the review period.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
wire rod from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies 
listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review, except if the 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 
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, 
or the original less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent final results 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 20.11 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 
Mexico, 67 FR 55800 (August 30, 2002).
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    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 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 administrative review is issued and published 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.
[FR Doc. E7-21870 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P