Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74267-74272 [E7-25397]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices cited programs. As established in 7 CFR 4279.107 and 4280.126, the amount of the fee on each guaranteed loan will be determined by multiplying the fee rate by the outstanding principal loan balance as of December 31, multiplied by the percent of guarantee. As set forth in 7 CFR 4280.126(a), each fiscal year the Agency shall establish the initial guarantee fee rate for loans made under the 9006 Guaranteed Loan Program. Pursuant to that authority, the Agency is establishing the initial guarantee fee rate at 1 percent for loans made in FY 2008. As set forth in 7 CFR 4279.107(a) and 4279.119(b)(4), each fiscal year the Agency shall establish a limit on the maximum portion of B&I guarantee authority available for that fiscal year that may be used to guarantee loans with a B&I guarantee fee of 1 percent or guaranteed loans with a guarantee percentage exceeding 80 percent. Allowing the guarantee fee to be reduced to 1 percent or exceeding the 80 percent guarantee on certain B&I guaranteed loans that meet the conditions set forth in 7 CFR 4279.107 and 4279.119 will increase the Agency’s ability to focus guarantee assistance on projects which the Agency has found particularly meritorious. For 1 percent fees, the borrower’s business supports value-added agriculture and results in farmers benefiting financially, or such projects are high impact as defined in 7 CFR 4279.155(b)(5) and located in rural communities that remain persistently poor, which experience long-term population decline and job deterioration, are experiencing trauma as a result of natural disaster, or are experiencing fundamental structural changes in its economic base. For guaranteed loans exceeding 80 percent, such projects must be a high-priority project in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.155. Not more than 12 percent of the Agency’s quarterly apportioned B&I guarantee authority will be reserved for loan requests with a guarantee fee of 1 percent, and not more than 15 percent of the Agency’s quarterly apportioned guarantee authority will be reserved for guaranteed loan requests with a guaranteed percentage exceeding 80 percent. Once the respective quarterly limits are reached, all additional loans for that quarter will be at the standard fee and guarantee limits in 7 CFR part 4279. As an exception to this paragraph and for the purposes of this notice, loans developed by the North American Development Bank (NADBank) Community Adjustment and Investment Program (CAIP) will not count against the 15 percent limit. Up to 50 percent VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 of CAIP loans may have a guaranteed percentage exceeding 80 percent. The funding authority for CAIP loans is not derived carryover or recovered funding authority of the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 2007. Fred Kieferle, USDA, Rural Development, Business Programs, Business and Industry Division, Stop 3224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–3224, telephone (202) 720–7818. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 13258. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: December 21, 2007. Ben Anderson, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. [FR Doc. E7–25352 Filed 12–28–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–820] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners1 and respondents,2 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping order on certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat products from India (hot-rolled carbon steel). This review covers four manufacturers and exporters (respondents) of the subject merchandise: Ispat, Tata, JSW, and Essar. The Department has preliminarily determined that during the period of review (POR), JSW made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). The Department has also preliminarily determined that no dumping margin or a de minimis dumping margin exists for Ispat, Tata and Essar during the POR. If these AGENCY: 1 The petitioners are Nucor Corporation (Nucor), Mittal Steel U.S.A. Inc., and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) (collectively, petitioners). 2 Respondents are Ispat Industries Limited (Ispat), Essar Steel Limited (Essar), JSW Steel Limited (JSW), and Tata Steel Limited (Tata) (collectively, respondents). PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 74267 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 on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett (Ispat), Joy Zhang (Tata), Stephanie Moore (JSW) or Victoria Cho (Essar), AD/CVD Operations Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4161, (202) 482– 1168, (202) 482–3692, and (202) 482– 5075, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled carbon steel. See Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) (Amended Final Determination). On December 1, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled carbon steel. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006). Petitioners requested a review of Essar. Ispat, Tata, Essar, and JSW selfrequested a review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled carbon steel. On February 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled carbon steel, covering the period December 1, 2005 to November 30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 5005 (February 2, 2007). On February 21, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Ispat, Tata, JSW, and Essar. The Department received responses to the original questionnaires from Ispat, Tata, JSW, and Essar. The Department subsequently issued supplemental questionnaires to all parties and received responses to the same. On August 30, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the time E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1 74268 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review from September 2, 2007, to December 19, 2007. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 50098 (August 30, 2007). sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Period of Review The POR covered by this review is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is hot-rolled carbon steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (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 thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum-degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 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 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot-rolled carbon steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • United States Steel (USS) Abrasionresistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel covered by this order, including: vacuumdegassed fully stabilized; high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department’s written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. Affiliation On June 13, 2007 and on October 31, 2007, Nucor alleged that JSW’s ownership and affiliations, as part of the O.P. Jindal Group, are not accurately reflected on the record, and that JSW has a close-supplier and a debt financing relationship with another steel company that rises to the level of control.3 Therefore, Nucor argues that pursuant to section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), JSW has two affiliations, 1) JSW with the O.P. Jindal Group, and 2) JSW and another steel company. Regarding JSW’s affiliations with the O.P. Jindal Group, information on the record shows that the group is comprised of nine business sectors headed by four brothers. JSW’s financial statements and notes thereto list some of the other O.P. Jindal Group companies as related parties. Also, JSW submitted consolidated financial highlights of the Group. Thus, by virtue of the familial relationships of the companies’ owners, they are affiliated under sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, as they are under the common control of a family group. See also 19 CFR 351.102. Nucor claims that the Department should collapse JSW and the O.P. Jindal Group. See October 31, 2007, submission at page 14. The Department finds that the record facts do not provide a basis for collapsing JSW and 3 Because the identity of this company, and related information, is business proprietary, see Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Office Director, through James Terpstra from the Team regarding JSW Affiliation Issue (JSW Affiliation Memorandum), dated December 19, 2007, for a detailed discussion. E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices other entities in the O.P. Jindal Group. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401, the Department collapses the operations of producers into a single entity when: 1) the producers are affiliated, 2) the producers have production facilities which would not require substantial retooling for producing similar or identical products, and 3) there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production. In this instant case, the record shows that JSW is affiliated with the companies that comprise the O.P. Jindal Group, and is the only company in the group that produces and sells subject merchandise. The evidence on the record indicates that the other companies in the Group have production facilities which would require substantial retooling for producing similar or identical products. Accordingly, the criteria for collapsing JSW into the O.P. Jindal Group has not been satisfied. For these reasons, for purposes of the preliminary results, we are not treating JSW and the O.P. Jindal Group as a single entity. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden, 63 FR 40449, 40452– 54 (July 29, 1998). In support of its allegations regarding the affiliation between JSW and another steel company, Nucor provides copies of newspaper articles referring to different transactions involving JSW, the other steel company and/or other parties. As discussed in detail in the JSW Affiliation Memorandum, we preliminary find that JSW is not affiliated with the other steel producer. We find that the articles submitted by Nucor do not establish that JSW and this company are affiliated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.102(b), the Department may find that control exists when one person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person and the relationship has the potential to impact decisions concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise or foreign like product. Nucor has not clearly explained or provided sufficient information supporting the factual basis for a ‘‘close supplier relationship’’ or a ‘‘debt financing relationship,’’ or why such relationships would cause a finding of control. The standard is not whether one company might be in a position to become reliant upon another by means of their supplier-buyer relationship; rather the Department must find that a situation exists where the buyer has, in fact, become reliant on the seller, or vice versa. Only if we make such a finding can we address the issue of whether one VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 of the parties is in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other. See Certain Cold-Rolled and CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews , 62 FR 18404, 18417 (April 15, 1997). The information on the record does not show that JSW is reliant upon the other steel company, or vice versa. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all hot-rolled carbon steel produced by the respondents, covered by the scope of the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to hotrolled carbon steel sold in the United States. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of identical merchandise in the home market 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 in Appendix V of the Department’s antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V physical characteristics reported by each respondent. Where sales were made in the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. market (theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the respondents, before making our fair-value comparisons. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of hotrolled carbon steel by the respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) or export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Constructed Export Price/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/Constructed Export Price Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 74269 States, as adjusted under subsection (c).’’ During the POR, Ispat, JSW and Essar produced and sold subject merchandise to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. For these sales of subject merchandise, we have applied the EP methodology. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).’’ During the POR, Tata and Essar also had CEP sales because, through their affiliates in the United States, they sold subject merchandise to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States after the date of importation of the merchandise. Thus, we have applied the CEP methodology to these sales. We based EP and CEP on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for billing adjustments. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, we made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. In addition, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, when appropriate, we increased EP or CEP, by an amount equal to the countervailing duty rate attributed to export subsidies in the most recently completed administrative review of the countervailing duty order applicable to the POR for Ispat and Essar. For JSW and Tata, we used the countrywide rate from the investigation. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA at 823–824,4 we deducted from the CEP the selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which consisted of credit expenses and commissions. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. 4 See the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (SAA), H. R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994). E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1 74270 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices Normal Value Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold by each 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) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price inland freight (offset, where applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c), we deducted rebates and discounts. We also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank charges and commissions. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on sales at the same level of trade as the EP. See the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section below. For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines ‘‘foreign like product’’ as merchandise which is either (1) identical or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When there are no identical products sold in the home market, the products which are most similar to the product sold in the United States are identified. For the nonidentical or most similar products which are identified based on the Department’s product matching criteria, an adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the actual physical differences between the products sold in the United States and the home market. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 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 (LOT) as the CEP/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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether CEP/EP sales and NV sales were at different LOTs, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customers. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT and the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT adjustment, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 1997). Essar, Ispat, Tata, and JSW each reported different channels of distribution in the home market; however, based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for each channel, we found one level of trade for each. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the December 19, 2007, Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for Ispat (Calculation Memorandum for Ispat); Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for Tata (Calculation Memorandum for Tata); Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for JSW Steel Limited (Calculation Memorandum for JSW), and Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for Essar (Calculation Memorandum for Essar), the public versions of which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B–099 of the main Department building. Based on these findings, we did not make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(e) because, as there was only one home market LOT for each respondent, we were unable to identify a pattern of consistent price differences attributable to differences in LOTs (see 19 CFR 351.412(d)). Under 19 CFR 351.412(f), we are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for Tata and Essar because the NV is at a more advanced LOT than the LOT for its U.S. CEP sales. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Cost of Production (COP) A. Calculation of COP In the most recently completed administrative reviews in which Essar and Ispat participated, the Department determined that Essar and Ispat sold foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. For Essar, see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) unchanged in the final results, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006). For Ispat, see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 66 FR 22157 (May 3, 2001), unchanged in the final results, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 66 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001). As a result, the Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that during the instant POR, Essar and Ispat sold foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost inquiry with respect to Essar and Ispat. We calculated a company-specific COP for Essar and Ispat based on the sum of each Essar’s and Ispat’s cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for homemarket selling expenses, selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on Essar’s and Ispat’s information as submitted. B. Test of Home-Market Prices In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to home market sales of the foreign like product and we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices (not including VAT), less any E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES C. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we may disregard below-COP sales in the determination of NV if these sales have been made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and were not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP for at least six months of the POR, we determined that sales of that model were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Where prices of a respondent’s sales of a given product were below the per-unit COP at the time of sale and below the weightedaverage per-unit costs for the POR, we determined that sales were not 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. In such cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent’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 we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for Ispat and Essar. We disregarded individual 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 Calculation Memorandum for Ispat and the Calculation Memorandum for Essar. Arm’s-Length Sales Tata and Essar reported that they made sales of the foreign like product in the home market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 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 considered the sales to be at arm’slength prices. See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006), and unchanged in the final results. See Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007); 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we found sales to the affiliated party that did not pass the arm’s-length test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). 74271 comments must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). A hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due date of the rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the written comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR Currency Conversion 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 For purposes of these preliminary days after the date of publication of the results, we made currency conversions final results of this review. The in accordance with section 773A(a) of Department clarified its ‘‘automatic the Act, based on the official exchange assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. rates published by the Federal Reserve See Antidumping and Countervailing Bank. Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Preliminary Results of the Review Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May As a result of this review, we 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). preliminarily find that the following This clarification will apply to entries of weighted-average dumping margins subject merchandise during the POR exist: produced by companies included in the final results of review for which the Weighted-Average reviewed companies did not know that Producer/Manufacturer Margin the merchandise they sold to the Ispat .............................. 0.00 % intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading Tata ............................... 0.24 % company, or exporter) was destined for JSW .............................. 37.01 % the United States. In such instances, we Essar ............................. 0.00 % will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘all-others’’ The Department will disclose rate if there is no rate for an calculations performed within five days intermediary involved in the of the date of publication of this notice transaction. See Assessment Policy to the parties of this proceeding in Notice for a full discussion of this accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). clarification. Interested parties may submit case briefs Cash Deposit Requirements and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of To calculate the cash deposit rate for these preliminary results of review. See each producer and/or exporter included 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are in this administrative review, we limited to issues raised in such briefs or divided the total dumping margins for comments and may be filed no later each company by the total net value for than five days after the time limit for that company’s sales during the review filing the case briefs or comments. See period. 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting The following deposit rates will be arguments in this proceeding are effective upon publication of the final requested to submit with the argument: results of this administrative review for 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief all shipments of hot-rolled carbon steel summary of the argument, and 3) a table from India entered, or withdrawn from of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) warehouse, for consumption on or after and (d)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs and the publication date, as provided by PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1 74272 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2007 / Notices 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 these reviews, a prior review, or the original less-thanfair-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 or the LTFV conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 38.72 percent, the ‘‘all-others’’ rate established in the LTFV. See Amended Final Determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Verification The Department intends to conduct sales verifications after these preliminary results for Ispat, Tata, and JSW. Notification to Importers sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 19, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–25397 Filed 12–28–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Dec 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–821–802] Extension of Time to Submit Comments Concerning the Initialed Draft Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) and the Russian Federation’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (‘‘Rosatom’’) have initialed a draft amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation (‘‘Suspension Agreement’’). See Initialed Draft Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation; Request for Comment, 72 FR 68124 (December 4, 2007) (‘‘Draft Amendment’’). On December 20, 2007, Power Resources, Inc. (‘‘PRI’’) and Crow Butte Resources, Inc (‘‘CBR’’), U.S. producers of uranium concentrates, requested a one-week extension to the comment period outlined in the Draft Amendment. The Department is granting this request in full. AGENCY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon at (202) 482–0162, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 30, 1992, the Department suspended the antidumping duty investigation involving uranium from Russia on the basis of an agreement by its government to restrict the volume of direct or indirect exports to the United States in order to prevent the suppression or undercutting of price levels of U.S. domestic uranium. See Antidumping; Uranium from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan; Suspension of Investigations and Amendment of Preliminary Determinations, 57 FR 49220 (October 30, 1992). The Suspension Agreement was subsequently amended, by agreement of both governments, on March 11, 1994, October 3, 1996, and May 7, 1997. See, respectively, Amendment to Agreement PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 59 FR 15373 (April 1, 1994); Amendments to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 61 FR 56665 (November 4, 1996); and Amendment to Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 62 FR 37879 (July 15, 1997). On July 31, 1998, the Department notified interested parties of an administrative change with respect to the Suspension Agreement. See Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation, 63 FR 40879 (July 31, 1998). On November 27, 2007, the Department and Rosatom initialed a new draft amendment to the Suspension Agreement. Extension Request The Department provided parties with thirty days from the publication date of the Draft Amendment in the Federal Register to submit comments on the proposed amendment. The Draft Amendment published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2007, and, therefore, comments were due on January 3, 2008. On December 20, 2007, PRI and CBR requested a one-week extension to the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed amendment. PRI and CBR stated in their submission that the complexity of the Suspension Agreement and Draft Amendment, coupled with the December holiday, necessitate additional time for PRI and CBR to review and analyze the Draft Amendment and submit meaningful comments. For the reasons stated in PRI’s and CBR’s submission, the Department is granting this request in full. The comments on the Draft Amendment are now due on January 10, 2008. Dated: December 21, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–25390 Filed 12–28–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Withdrawal of Panel Review NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74267-74272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25397]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-820]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice 
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners\1\ and 
respondents,\2\ the Department of Commerce (the Department) is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping order on certain 
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India (hot-rolled carbon 
steel). This review covers four manufacturers and exporters 
(respondents) of the subject merchandise: Ispat, Tata, JSW, and Essar. 
The Department has preliminarily determined that during the period of 
review (POR), JSW made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal 
value (NV). The Department has also preliminarily determined that no 
dumping margin or a de minimis dumping margin exists for Ispat, Tata 
and Essar during the POR. 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 on all 
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are Nucor Corporation (Nucor), Mittal Steel 
U.S.A. Inc., and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) 
(collectively, petitioners).
    \2\ Respondents are Ispat Industries Limited (Ispat), Essar 
Steel Limited (Essar), JSW Steel Limited (JSW), and Tata Steel 
Limited (Tata) (collectively, respondents).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett (Ispat), Joy Zhang 
(Tata), Stephanie Moore (JSW) or Victoria Cho (Essar), AD/CVD 
Operations Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4161, (202) 482-1168, (202) 482-3692, and (202) 482-5075, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled carbon steel. See 
Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) (Amended 
Final Determination). On December 1, 2006, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled 
carbon steel. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 
71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006).
    Petitioners requested a review of Essar. Ispat, Tata, Essar, and 
JSW self-requested a review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled 
carbon steel. On February 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order 
on hot-rolled carbon steel, covering the period December 1, 2005 to 
November 30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 
5005 (February 2, 2007).
    On February 21, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Ispat, Tata, JSW, and Essar. The Department received 
responses to the original questionnaires from Ispat, Tata, JSW, and 
Essar. The Department subsequently issued supplemental questionnaires 
to all parties and received responses to the same.
    On August 30, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the 
time

[[Page 74268]]

period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review 
from September 2, 2007, to December 19, 2007. See Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Extension of Time Limits for the 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 
50098 (August 30, 2007).

Period of Review

    The POR covered by this review is December 1, 2005, through 
November 30, 2006.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is hot-rolled carbon steel 
products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, 
neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, 
varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in 
coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless 
of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 
mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal 
mill plate (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 thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without 
patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included 
within the scope of this order.
    Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum-
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free 
(IF)) steels, high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate 
for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-carbon 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or 
niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to 
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, 
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination 
steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and 
aluminum.
    Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of 
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over 
each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below 
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
    1.80 percent of manganese, or
    2.25 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
    0.15 percent of vanadium, or
    0.15 percent of zirconium.
    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
     Alloy hot-rolled carbon steel products in which at least 
one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, 
e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications 
A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)).
     Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & 
Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     United States Steel (USS) Abrasion-resistant steels (USS 
AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTS.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel 
covered by this order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized; 
high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel 
may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 
7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 
7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 
7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter 
under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 
7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written 
description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.

Affiliation

    On June 13, 2007 and on October 31, 2007, Nucor alleged that JSW's 
ownership and affiliations, as part of the O.P. Jindal Group, are not 
accurately reflected on the record, and that JSW has a close-supplier 
and a debt financing relationship with another steel company that rises 
to the level of control.\3\ Therefore, Nucor argues that pursuant to 
section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), JSW 
has two affiliations, 1) JSW with the O.P. Jindal Group, and 2) JSW and 
another steel company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because the identity of this company, and related 
information, is business proprietary, see Memorandum to Melissa 
Skinner, Office Director, through James Terpstra from the Team 
regarding JSW Affiliation Issue (JSW Affiliation Memorandum), dated 
December 19, 2007, for a detailed discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding JSW's affiliations with the O.P. Jindal Group, 
information on the record shows that the group is comprised of nine 
business sectors headed by four brothers. JSW's financial statements 
and notes thereto list some of the other O.P. Jindal Group companies as 
related parties. Also, JSW submitted consolidated financial highlights 
of the Group. Thus, by virtue of the familial relationships of the 
companies' owners, they are affiliated under sections 771(33)(A) and 
(F) of the Act, as they are under the common control of a family group. 
See also 19 CFR 351.102.
    Nucor claims that the Department should collapse JSW and the O.P. 
Jindal Group. See October 31, 2007, submission at page 14. The 
Department finds that the record facts do not provide a basis for 
collapsing JSW and

[[Page 74269]]

other entities in the O.P. Jindal Group. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401, 
the Department collapses the operations of producers into a single 
entity when: 1) the producers are affiliated, 2) the producers have 
production facilities which would not require substantial retooling for 
producing similar or identical products, and 3) there is a significant 
potential for manipulation of price or production. In this instant 
case, the record shows that JSW is affiliated with the companies that 
comprise the O.P. Jindal Group, and is the only company in the group 
that produces and sells subject merchandise. The evidence on the record 
indicates that the other companies in the Group have production 
facilities which would require substantial retooling for producing 
similar or identical products. Accordingly, the criteria for collapsing 
JSW into the O.P. Jindal Group has not been satisfied. For these 
reasons, for purposes of the preliminary results, we are not treating 
JSW and the O.P. Jindal Group as a single entity. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod from Sweden, 63 FR 40449, 40452-54 (July 29, 1998).
    In support of its allegations regarding the affiliation between JSW 
and another steel company, Nucor provides copies of newspaper articles 
referring to different transactions involving JSW, the other steel 
company and/or other parties. As discussed in detail in the JSW 
Affiliation Memorandum, we preliminary find that JSW is not affiliated 
with the other steel producer. We find that the articles submitted by 
Nucor do not establish that JSW and this company are affiliated. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.102(b), the Department may find that control 
exists when one person is legally or operationally in a position to 
exercise restraint or direction over the other person and the 
relationship has the potential to impact decisions concerning the 
production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise or foreign like 
product. Nucor has not clearly explained or provided sufficient 
information supporting the factual basis for a ``close supplier 
relationship'' or a ``debt financing relationship,'' or why such 
relationships would cause a finding of control. The standard is not 
whether one company might be in a position to become reliant upon 
another by means of their supplier-buyer relationship; rather the 
Department must find that a situation exists where the buyer has, in 
fact, become reliant on the seller, or vice versa. Only if we make such 
a finding can we address the issue of whether one of the parties is in 
a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other. See 
Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews , 
62 FR 18404, 18417 (April 15, 1997). The information on the record does 
not show that JSW is reliant upon the other steel company, or vice 
versa.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
hot-rolled carbon steel produced by the respondents, covered by the 
scope of the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be 
foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to hot-rolled carbon steel sold in the United States.
    Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of 
identical merchandise in the home market 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 in Appendix V of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product 
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V 
physical characteristics reported by each respondent. Where sales were 
made in the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. 
market (theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities 
to the same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the 
respondents, before making our fair-value comparisons.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of hot-rolled carbon steel by the 
respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared 
the constructed export price (CEP) or export price (EP) to the NV, as 
described in the ``Constructed Export Price/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/Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).'' During the POR, 
Ispat, JSW and Essar produced and sold subject merchandise to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. For 
these sales of subject merchandise, we have applied the EP methodology.
    Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 
States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of 
the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).'' 
During the POR, Tata and Essar also had CEP sales because, through 
their affiliates in the United States, they sold subject merchandise to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States after the date of 
importation of the merchandise. Thus, we have applied the CEP 
methodology to these sales.
    We based EP and CEP on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for billing 
adjustments. We also made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, we made 
deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, 
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, U.S. brokerage 
and handling, and U.S. customs duties. In addition, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, when appropriate, we increased EP or 
CEP, by an amount equal to the countervailing duty rate attributed to 
export subsidies in the most recently completed administrative review 
of the countervailing duty order applicable to the POR for Ispat and 
Essar. For JSW and Tata, we used the countrywide rate from the 
investigation.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA at 823-
824,\4\ we deducted from the CEP the selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, which consisted of 
credit expenses and commissions. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act, we also deducted indirect selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States. Pursuant to section 
772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (SAA), H. R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 
(1994).

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

[[Page 74270]]

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold by each 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) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the 
price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption 
in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade.
    Where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act, we deducted from the starting price inland freight (offset, where 
applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and packing. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c), we deducted rebates and discounts. We 
also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank charges and 
commissions. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
based NV on sales at the same level of trade as the EP. See the ``Level 
of Trade'' section below.
    For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines 
``foreign like product'' as merchandise which is either (1) identical 
or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When there 
are no identical products sold in the home market, the products which 
are most similar to the product sold in the United States are 
identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are 
identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an 
adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the 
actual physical differences between the products sold in the United 
States and the home market. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.411.

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 
(LOT) as the CEP/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 CEP/EP sales and 
NV sales were at different LOTs, we examine stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the customers. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales 
at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we will 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP 
sales, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than 
the CEP LOT and the data available do not provide an appropriate basis 
to determine an LOT adjustment, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided 
in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
    Essar, Ispat, Tata, and JSW each reported different channels of 
distribution in the home market; however, based on our analysis of the 
selling functions performed for each channel, we found one level of 
trade for each. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a 
summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, 
see the December 19, 2007, Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for 
Ispat (Calculation Memorandum for Ispat); Preliminary Sales Calculation 
Memorandum for Tata (Calculation Memorandum for Tata); Preliminary 
Sales Calculation Memorandum for JSW Steel Limited (Calculation 
Memorandum for JSW), and Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for 
Essar (Calculation Memorandum for Essar), the public versions of which 
are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main 
Department building.
    Based on these findings, we did not make an LOT adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(e) because, as there 
was only one home market LOT for each respondent, we were unable to 
identify a pattern of consistent price differences attributable to 
differences in LOTs (see 19 CFR 351.412(d)). Under 19 CFR 351.412(f), 
we are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for Tata and Essar because 
the NV is at a more advanced LOT than the LOT for its U.S. CEP sales.

Cost of Production (COP)

A. Calculation of COP
    In the most recently completed administrative reviews in which 
Essar and Ispat participated, the Department determined that Essar and 
Ispat sold foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing 
the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. For 
Essar, see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
2018 (January 12, 2006) unchanged in the final results, Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006). 
For Ispat, see Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 66 FR 22157 (May 3, 
2001), unchanged in the final results, Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From India, 66 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001). As a result, the 
Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that during the instant POR, Essar and Ispat sold foreign like 
product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. See 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the Department 
initiated a sales-below-cost inquiry with respect to Essar and Ispat.
    We calculated a company-specific COP for Essar and Ispat based on 
the sum of each Essar's and Ispat's cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market selling 
expenses, selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and 
packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We 
relied on Essar's and Ispat's information as submitted.
B. Test of Home-Market Prices
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) 
of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to home market sales 
of the foreign like product and we examined whether (1) within an 
extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities, and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-
specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices (not 
including VAT), less any

[[Page 74271]]

applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
C. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we may disregard below-
COP sales in the determination of NV if these sales have been made 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and were 
not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP for at 
least six months of the POR, we determined that sales of that model 
were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of 
time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. 
Where prices of a respondent's sales of a given product were below the 
per-unit COP at the time of sale and below the weighted-average per-
unit costs for the POR, we determined that sales were not 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. In such 
cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent'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 we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.''
    We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for Ispat and 
Essar. We disregarded individual 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 Calculation 
Memorandum for Ispat and the Calculation Memorandum for Essar.

Arm's-Length Sales

    Tata and Essar reported that they made sales of the foreign like 
product in the home market to affiliated parties. The Department 
calculates 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 considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices. See Notice 
of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020 (August 8, 
2006), and unchanged in the final results. See Notice of Final Results 
of the Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007); 19 CFR 
351.403(c). Conversely, where we found sales to the affiliated party 
that did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated 
party have been excluded from the NV calculation. See Antidumping 
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 
FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002).

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 the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Producer/Manufacturer                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ispat...............................................       0.00 [percnt]
Tata................................................       0.24 [percnt]
JSW.................................................      37.01 [percnt]
Essar...............................................       0.00 [percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). Interested parties may 
submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 
CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after 
the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) 
a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. See 19 
CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs and comments 
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f). Further, parties submitting written comments are requested 
to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version 
of any such comments on a diskette.
    An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). A 
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due 
date of the rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in the written comments, or at a 
hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rate

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to 
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of 
publication of the final results of this 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 Policy 
Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in the final 
results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that 
the merchandise they 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 is no rate for an intermediary 
involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full 
discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or 
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total 
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
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 
hot-rolled carbon steel from India entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by

[[Page 74272]]

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 
these reviews, 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 or 
the LTFV conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 
38.72 percent, the ``all-others'' rate established in the LTFV. See 
Amended Final Determination. These cash deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Verification

    The Department intends to conduct sales verifications after these 
preliminary results for Ispat, Tata, and JSW.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 19, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-25397 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S