Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Administrative Review in Part, 65701-65706 [E7-22869]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 225 (Friday, November 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65701-65706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22869]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-836]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From 
the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Administrative Review in 
Part

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 certain cut-to-length carbon-quality 
steel plate products from the Republic of Korea. This review covers 
three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of 
review (POR) is February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that certain companies 
subject to this review made U.S. sales at prices less than normal 
value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results of review. We will issue the final results of review no later 
than 120 days from the publication date of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: November 23, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Johnson or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
5287 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On February 10, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-
quality steel plate products (steel plate) from the Republic of Korea 
(Korea). See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-To-Length 
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India, Indonesia, 
Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 (February 10, 2000). 
On February 2, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 
72 FR 5007 (February 2, 2007). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), 
on February 26, 2007, Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), a producer/
exporter, requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United 
Stated during the POR. Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1), on February 28, 2007, a domestic producer and interested 
party, Nucor Corporation (Nucor), requested that the Department conduct 
a review of DSM, Tae Chang Steel Co., Ltd. (TC Steel), and DSEC Co., 
Ltd., a subsidiary of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSEC). 
On March 28, 2007, the Department initiated an administrative review of 
DSM. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 14516 (March 28, 2007). Because the 
Department inadvertently omitted the names of TC Steel and DSEC from 
the initiation notice that was published on March 28, 2007, on April 
27, 2007, the Department initiated an administrative review of TC Steel 
and DSEC. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27, 2007). On November 6, 
2007, we extended the due date for the preliminary results of review by 
15 days to November 15, 2007. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 
Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 62625 (November 6, 2007).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-
rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-
rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 
width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or 
actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in 
coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality 
steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual 
thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and 
measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not 
in coils). Steel products included in the scope of the order are of 
rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and of rectangular or 
non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section 
is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which 
have been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have 
been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the 
noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated 
with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this 
scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high 
strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels 
with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, 
niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in 
this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) 
the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of 
the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by 
weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 
percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of 
aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 
0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of 
tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 
0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent 
zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and 
in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the 
levels listed above, are within the scope

[[Page 65702]]

of the order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following 
products are specifically excluded from the order: (1) Products clad, 
plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or 
coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades 
(formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to 
ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-
resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to 
ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary 
equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon 
manganese steel or silicon electric steel. Imports of steel plate are 
currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 7208.40.3030, 
7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 
7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 
7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 
7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 
7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The 
written description of the merchandise covered by the order is 
dispositive.

Intent To Rescind the Administrative Review in Part

    We examined CBP data and did not find entries of subject 
merchandise from DSEC during the POR. See Letter to DSEC Co., Ltd., 
dated October 10, 2007, and accompanying enclosure. Further, DSEC 
stated that it did not have any sales to the United States which 
resulted in suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. 
See Letter from DSEC Co., Ltd., dated November 2, 2007.
    Section 751(a) of the Act instructs the Department that, when 
conducting administrative reviews, it is to determine the dumping 
margin for entries during the relevant period. Further, according to 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review 
in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer if 
it concludes that, during the POR, there were no entries, exports, or 
sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may be. The Department 
has interpreted the statutory and regulatory language as requiring 
``that there be entries during the period of review upon which to 
assess antidumping duties.'' See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 
from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 44088 (August 1, 2005). In Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. 
United States, 346 F.3d 1368, 1372 (CAFC 2003), the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit upheld the Department's practice of rescinding 
annual reviews when there are no entries of subject merchandise during 
the POR. See also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 63067, 
63068 (November 7, 2003) (stating that ``the Department's 
interpretation of its statute and regulations, as affirmed by the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, supports not conducting an 
administrative review when the evidence on the record indicates that 
respondents had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR''). 
Because there were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR 
from DSEC, we preliminarily find that there were no imports from DSEC 
during the POR and, as a result, we intend to rescind the 
administrative review with respect to DSEC. If we continue to find at 
the time of our final results of administrative review that there were 
no entries of subject merchandise from DSEC, we will rescind our review 
of DSEC.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available is appropriate for the preliminary results with 
respect to TC Steel.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information and in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes 
a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the 
administering authority shall use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    On April 20, 2007, the Department transmitted its questionnaire to 
TC Steel via Federal Express. We confirmed that TC Steel signed for and 
received the questionnaire on April 23, 2007. TC Steel did not respond 
to section A of our questionnaire by the due date, May 14, 2007. On May 
18, 2007, we sent a letter via facsimile to Mr. Jae-sung Yoo, 
chairperson of TC Steel, asking the company to inform us as to whether 
it had submitted or intended to submit a response to our questionnaire 
or whether TC Steel and its affiliates did not have any U.S. sales or 
shipments during the review period. TC Steel received the letter on the 
same day, but it did not respond to the letter by the specified due 
date, May 29, 2007. See Memorandum to The File from Yang Jin Chun 
concerning the non-response of Tae Chang Steel Co., Ltd., dated July 
27, 2007. Because TC Steel did not provide a response to the 
Department's questionnaire, TC Steel failed to provide any information 
to the Department within the meaning of section 776(a)(2) of the Act. 
As a result, the Department is unable to calculate a margin for TC 
Steel and, therefore, must rely entirely on facts available.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under 
this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Line Pipe From Mexico, 69 FR 59892, 
59896-97 (October 6, 2004); see also Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final 
Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances in Part: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From 
Mexico, 68 FR 42378, 42380-82 (July 17, 2003).
    Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 
870 (1994) (SAA). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith, or 
willfulness, on the part of a respondent is not required before the 
Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties, 
Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
    Because TC Steel did not respond to our questionnaire despite 
multiple opportunities, we preliminarily find

[[Page 65703]]

that TC Steel failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and that 
the use of an adverse inference is appropriate. See section 776(b) of 
the Act and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 
FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (where the Department applied total 
adverse facts available because the respondents failed to respond to 
the antidumping questionnaire).

C. Selection of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies an adverse facts-available rate 
because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of 
the Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from 
the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, 
or other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) 
and the SAA at 870. In this case, we have assigned to TC Steel the 
highest product-specific margin, 32.70 percent, which we have 
calculated in this review based on the data reported by a respondent. 
We have selected this rate because we have never reviewed TC Steel in a 
prior segment of this proceeding and we do not have any additional 
information about this company. Moreover, this rate is sufficiently 
high as to reasonably assure that TC Steel does not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate. Finally, given that this 
information was reported to the Department in the instant segment of 
the proceeding, there is no basis to doubt this information's 
reliability and relevance as applied in this segment to TC Steel. See 
generally the SAA at 870 (discussing the need to corroborate 
information used as facts available when that information was reported 
to the Department in a prior segment of an AD/CVD proceeding).

DSM

A. Affiliation

    Consistent with the Department's determination in the 2004-2005 
administrative review of the order, the Department continues to find 
that DSM and Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (DKI) are affiliated.\1\ The 
evidence on the record indicates that the same familial relationships 
that formed the basis of the Department's determination in the 2004-
2005 administrative review \2\ continue today. Because of the business-
proprietary nature of this discussion, the entire analysis for this 
current review may be found in the Department's Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum for DSM dated November 15, 2007. Furthermore, although DSM 
identified DKI as an unaffiliated entity in its original questionnaire 
response, DSM stated later that there have not been any changes in the 
ownership or control of DSM and DKI during the POR that would affect 
the Department's 2004-2005 analysis of affiliation between the two 
companies. See DSM's July 5, 2007, Supplemental Questionnaire Response 
at 2. For all of these reasons, the Department preliminarily determines 
that DSM and DKI are under common control of a family grouping and, 
thus, are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 
67428, 67429 (November 7, 2005), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 13080 
(March 14, 2006) (Steel Plate 2004-2005).
    \2\ See Memorandum to Holly Kuga from Malcolm Burke concerning 
the affiliation analysis for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., dated 
October 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Overrun Sales

    DSM reported home-market sales of ``overrun'' merchandise (i.e., 
sales of a greater quantity of steel plate than the customer ordered 
due to overproduction). Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that 
normal value shall be based on the price at which the foreign like 
product is first sold, inter alia, in the ordinary course of trade. 
Section 771(15) of the Act defines ``ordinary course of trade'' as the 
``conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to the 
exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade 
under consideration with respect to merchandise of the same class or 
kind.'' In past cases, the Department has examined certain factors to 
determine whether ``overrun'' sales are in the ordinary course of 
trade. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Brazil, 64 FR 38756, 38770 (July 19, 1999). These factors 
include the following: (1) Whether the merchandise is ``off-quality'' 
or produced according to unusual specifications; (2) the comparative 
volume of sales and the number of buyers in the home market; (3) the 
average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the average quantity of 
a commercial sale; and (4) price and profit differentials in the home 
market.
    Id. Based on our analysis of these factors and the terms of sale, 
we preliminarily determine that DSM's overrun sales are outside the 
ordinary course of trade. Because our analysis makes use of business-
proprietary information, we have included the analysis in a separate 
memorandum. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from Lyn Johnson 
concerning DSM's Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade dated 
November 15, 2007.

Fair-Value Comparison

    To determine whether DSM's sales of the subject merchandise from 
Korea to the United States were at prices below normal value, we 
compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value as 
described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of 
the Act, we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to the 
monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where 
there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade.

Product Comparison

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the ``scope of the order'' section above produced 
and sold by DSM in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign 
like product for the purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically, in 
making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an 
identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to 
weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales 
which passed the cost-of-production (COP) test of the identical product 
during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-
average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If 
there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we 
identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the 
most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the 
physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following 
order of importance: painted, quality, specification, heat treatments, 
thickness, width, patterns in relief, and descaling.

Constructed Export Price

    The Department based the price of DSM's U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise on CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because 
the merchandise was sold, before importation, by a U.S.-based

[[Page 65704]]

seller affiliated with the producer to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act we 
calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes 
direct selling expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Act, we also deducted those indirect selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States and the profit 
allocated to expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) in accordance 
with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total 
revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and comparison markets, 
less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit 
to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on 
the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. 
and comparison markets.

Normal Value

A. Home-Market Viability

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

B. Cost-of-Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed administrative review, the 
Department determined that DSM sold the foreign like product at prices 
below the cost of producing the merchandise and, as a result, excluded 
such sales from the calculation of normal value. See Steel Plate 2004-
2005, 70 FR at 67431. Therefore, in this review, we have reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that DSM's sales of the foreign like 
product under consideration for the determination of normal value may 
have been made at prices below COP as provided by section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of DSM's sales in the 
comparison market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and labor employed in 
producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental 
to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the 
comparison-market sales and COP information provided by DSM in its 
questionnaire response.
    After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 
773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported 
comparison-market prices less any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of DSM's sales of a given product were at prices less than the 
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because 
the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of DSM's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of 
prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that these 
sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost 
sales.

C. Arm's-Length Test

    The Department may calculate normal value 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 exporter or producer, i.e., sales at 
arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). For affiliated-party sales, 
we excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated customers for 
consumption in the comparison market that we determined not to be at 
arm's-length prices. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-
length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of 
comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of 
all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when 
the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 
and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for 
merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we 
determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length 
prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the 
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) (explaining 
the Department's practice). We included in our calculations of normal 
value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length 
prices.

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We based normal value on comparison-market sales to unaffiliated 
purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-
length test. DSM's comparison-market prices were based on the packed, 
ex-factory, or delivered prices. When applicable, we made adjustments 
for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of 
sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from 
normal value.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determine normal value for sales at 
the

[[Page 65705]]

same level of trade as CEP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.412. When there are no sales at the same level of 
trade, we compare CEP sales to comparison-market sales at a different 
level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the comparison market.
    To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different 
level of trade than U.S. sales for DSM in this review we examined 
stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain 
of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. 
Based on our analysis, we have preliminarily determined that there is 
one level of trade in the United States and one level of trade in the 
home market and that the U.S. level of trade is at a less advanced 
stage than the home-market level of trade. Therefore, we have compared 
U.S. sales to home-market sales at different levels of trade.
    Because there is only on level of trade in the home market, we were 
unable to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on DSM's home-
market sales of the foreign like product and we have no other 
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-
of-trade adjustment. For DSM's CEP sales, to the extent possible, we 
determined normal value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to 
the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset 
adjustment to normal value is subject to the so-called offset cap, 
which is calculated as the sum of home-market indirect selling expenses 
up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP.
    For a detailed description of our level-of-trade analysis for DSM 
in these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 
for DSM dated November 15, 2007.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, we converted amounts expressed in 
foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchanged 
rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period 
February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd.................................        2.25
TC Steel....................................................       32.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing is 
requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing 
schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed 
by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Also, interested parties may file 
rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The 
Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days 
after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the 
issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities 
cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments 
provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of 
the public version of such comments.
    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results 
in the Federal Register.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an 
importer-specific assessment rate for these preliminary results of 
review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by 
the total entered value of those reviewed sales for the importer. We 
will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as 
appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant 
importer during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department will 
issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final 
results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by DSM for which DSM did 
not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such 
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of DSM-
produced merchandise at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the 
intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full 
discussion of this clarification, see Assessment of Antidumping Duties.
    Because we are relying on total adverse facts available to 
establish TC Steel's dumping margin, we preliminarily determine to 
instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin of 32.70 percent to all entries 
of subject merchandise during the POR that were produced and/or 
exported by TC Steel.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of steel plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final 
results of this review; (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 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; (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate 
will be 0.98 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation,\3\ adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in the companion 
countervailing duty investigation.\4\ These deposit

[[Page 65706]]

requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products 
from Korea, 64 FR 73196, 73214 (December 29, 1999).
    \4\ See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic 
of Korea, 64 FR 73176, 731818-86 (December 29, 1999), as amended in 
Notice of Amended Final Determinations: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India and the Republic of Korea, 65 
FR 6587, 6588 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice also 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: November 15, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-22869 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P