Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 45708-45716 [E8-17987]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45708-45716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-822]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from respondent ThyssenKrupp Mexinox 
S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox S.A.) and Mexinox USA, Inc. (Mexinox USA) 
(collectively, Mexinox) and petitioners,\1\ the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (S4 
in coils) from Mexico. This administrative review covers imports of 
subject merchandise from Mexinox S.A. during the period July 1, 2006, 
to June 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel 
Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 
3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. and the United 
Steelworkers of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales of S4 in coils from Mexico 
have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will 
instruct United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed 
export price (CEP) and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on 
these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these 
proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement 
of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of 
authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5604 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Mexico, 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). On July 3, 2007, the 
Department published a notice entitled Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 (July 3, 2007), covering, inter 
alia, S4 in coils from Mexico for the period July 1, 2006 through June 
30, 2007.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Mexinox and petitioners 
requested that the Department conduct

[[Page 45709]]

an administrative review. On August 24, 2007, we published in the 
Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review covering the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 
2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613 
(August 24, 2007).
    On September 11, 2007, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Mexinox. Mexinox submitted its response to section A 
of the questionnaire on October 3, 2007, and its response to sections B 
through E of the questionnaire on October 29, 2007. On January 9, 2008, 
the Department issued its supplemental questionnaire for section A. 
Mexinox responded to this supplemental questionnaire on February 1, 
2008. On March 5, 2008, the Department issued another supplemental 
questionnaire which covered sections A through C. Mexinox filed its 
response to this questionnaire on April 7, 2008. The Department also 
issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D on April 11, 2008, to 
which Mexinox responded on May 19, 2008. On May 2, 2008, the Department 
issued another supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C, as 
well as for section E, the latter of which pertains to an affiliated 
U.S. reseller, Ken-Mac Metals (Ken-Mac). Mexinox filed its response to 
this supplemental questionnaire also on May 19, 2008. Finally, the 
Department issued separate supplemental questionnaires covering section 
D and sections A through C on May 19, 2008 and May 30, 2008, 
respectively. Mexinox submitted its responses to both of these 
supplemental questionnaires on June 11, 2008.
    Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the 
normal time frame, on February 22, 2008, we published in the Federal 
Register our notice of the extension of time limits for this review. 
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 9772 (February 22, 2008). This extension established the 
deadline for these preliminary results as July 30, 2008.

Cost Reporting Period

    On December 19, 2007, Mexinox submitted information regarding its 
material input costs for the period of review (POR) and claimed the use 
of a single weighted-average cost for austenitic products for the 
entire POR would distort the dumping margin calculation due to sharply 
rising nickel costs throughout the period. Rather than using a single 
POR-average cost for purposes of the sales-below-cost test, Mexinox 
urged the Department to consider employing monthly or quarterly costs 
for austenitic products (i.e. those products that contain nickel) in 
this segment of the proceeding. On June 27, 2008, petitioners submitted 
comments claiming the Department's standard practice of using POR-
average costs is appropriate in the instant case. In rebuttal comments 
submitted July 2, 2008, Mexinox maintains record evidence shows a 
direct link between cost increases for austenitic hot-rolled stainless 
steel band (hot band), the principle material input for S4 in coils, 
and price increases for finished S4 in coils during the POR through 
alloy surcharges which Mexinox claims act as a pass-through pricing 
mechanism. In addition, on July 10, 2008, the Department met with 
representatives for Mexinox on this issue. See Ex Parte Memorandum to 
the File, from Maryanne Burke dated July 14, 2008, on file in CRU in 
room 1117 of the main Commerce building.
    The Department has considered the sales and cost information 
reported by Mexinox, in addition to the comments submitted by 
petitioners and Mexinox. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily find 
it appropriate to use Mexinox's reported quarterly costs of austenitic 
products for this review. With the exception of cases where high 
inflation exists in which the Department restates an annual weighted-
average cost to an equivalent basis, the Department's normal practice 
is to calculate a weighted-average cost for the entire POR unless this 
methodology results in inappropriate comparisons or skewed data. See, 
e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at comment 18; see also Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination not to Revoke 
the Antidumping Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 
FR 742, 746 (January 5, 2000). In determining whether distortions 
result from significant cost fluctuations in the context of our 
antidumping duty calculations, the Department has historically 
evaluated the case specific record evidence using two primary factors: 
(1) Whether the cost changes throughout the POI/POR were significant; 
and (2) whether sales during the shorter averaging periods could be 
accurately linked with the COP/CV during the same shorter averaging 
periods. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 
Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 
and Determination To Revoke in Part (Rebar from Turkey), 70 FR 67665 
(November 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1. See also Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi 
A.S., Plantiff, v. United States, Court No. 05-00613, Slip Op. 07-167 
(CIT November 15, 2007).
    With regard to the first factor, record evidence provided by 
Mexinox demonstrates significant changes in the total cost of 
manufacture (COM) throughout the POR for austenitic stainless steel 
sheet and strip products produced during the POR. Based upon the record 
of this review, the significant change throughout the POR in the total 
COM is due to the price volatility of nickel which is used in the 
production of the austenitic hot band purchased by Mexinox. Austenitic 
hot band is Mexinox's raw material input for certain merchandise under 
consideration. Thus, unlike Rebar from Turkey, we preliminary conclude 
that the differences in COM are significant enough to warrant a 
departure from our standard annual costing approach based upon record 
evidence indicating our annual cost approach would lead to distortions 
in our sales-below-cost test and inconsistencies in our overall margin 
calculation.
    To address the second factor, Mexinox demonstrated that, through 
its alloy surcharge levied on all sales during the POR, there is a 
linkage between the increasing direct material costs and final sale 
prices. Specifically, Mexinox illustrated that nickel acquisition and 
consumption costs are related to the market prices promulgated by the 
London Metal Exchange. We note the alloy surcharge regime is a common 
business practice in the stainless steel industry, whereby the changes 
in material costs realized by producers during the months preceding the 
date of sale are measured and ultimately transferred to its final 
customers. While we acknowledge that the alloy surcharge figure does 
not directly correspond to changes in the price of the applicable raw 
material used in the production to which the surcharge applies, as 
found in Brass from the Netherlands, the surcharge amount is, by 
design, a pass-through mechanism developed to account for raw material 
price changes. The objective of this pass-through mechanism satisfies 
the basic theory behind our second criterion--it demonstrates a direct 
link between production costs and sales prices. We have examined the 
data submitted by

[[Page 45710]]

Mexinox and have concluded that a quarterly costing approach would lead 
to more appropriate comparisons in our antidumping duty calculations 
for austenitic products. For those products reported that do not 
contain nickel, we have continued to use a single weighted-average cost 
for the POR.
    Additionally, we note the Department solicited comments from 
outside parties on shorter cost averaging periods in a Federal Register 
notice. See Antidumping Methodologies for Proceedings that Involve 
Significant Cost Changes Throughout the Period of Investigation (POI)/
Period of Review (POR) that May Require Using Shorter Cost Averaging 
Periods; Request for Comment, 73 FR 26364 (May 9, 2008) (Antidumping 
Methodologies; Request for Comment ). On June 9, 2008, the Department 
extended the time limit for parties to submit written comments 
concerning this issue to June 23, 2008. See Antidumping Methodologies 
for Proceedings that Involve Significant Cost Changes Throughout the 
Period of Investigation (POI)/Period of Review (POR) that May Require 
Using Shorter Cost Averaging Periods; Request for Comment and Proposed 
Methodology for Identifying and Analyzing Targeted Dumping in 
Antidumping Investigations; Request for Comment, 73 FR 32557 (June 9, 
2008). We are currently analyzing the comments received which could 
lead the Department to formulate a different methodological framework 
on this matter. Thus, we will further examine the facts of this case 
for the final results of this review in light of both the comments 
received from the interested parties in this administrative review and 
the general comments received with respect to Antidumping 
Methodologies; Request for Comment.

Period of Review

    The POR is July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 
7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 
7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 
7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 
7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 
7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 
7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 
7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 
7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 
7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 
7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 
7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 
7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 
7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness 
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent 
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are 
described below.
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves for compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth 
elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits

[[Page 45711]]

magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of 
between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in 
electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Arnokrome III.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 
percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\5\ This steel is similar to ASTM grade 440F, but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \6\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sales Made Through Affiliated Resellers

A. U.S. Market

    Mexinox USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mexinox S.A., which in 
turn is a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp AG, sold subject merchandise in 
the United States during the POR to unaffiliated customers. Mexinox USA 
also made sales of subject merchandise to U.S. affiliate Ken-Mac which 
is an operating division of ThyssenKrupp Materials Inc., which is a 
subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc., the primary holding company for 
ThyssenKrupp AG in the U.S. market. Ken-Mac purchased subject 
merchandise from Mexinox USA and further manufactured and/or resold the 
subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States 
during the POR. See Mexinox's October 3, 2007, section A questionnaire 
response at 13, 22 and 29. For purposes of this review, we have 
included both Mexinox USA's and Ken-Mac's sales of subject merchandise 
to unaffiliated customers in the United States in our margin 
calculation.

B. Home Market

    Mexinox Trading, S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox Trading), a wholly owned 
subsidiary of Mexinox S.A., resold the foreign like product as well as 
other merchandise in the home market. Mexinox S.A.'s sales to Mexinox 
Trading represented a small portion of Mexinox S.A.'s total sales of 
the foreign like product in the home market and constituted less than 
five percent of all home market sales. See, e.g., Mexinox's October 3, 
2007, section A questionnaire response at 3, and its April 7, 2008, 
supplemental questionnaire response covering sections A through C at 
Attachment A-26 (quantity and value chart). Because sales to Mexinox 
Trading of the foreign like product were below the five percent 
threshold established under 19 CFR 351.403(d), we did not require 
Mexinox S.A. to report Mexinox Trading's downstream sales to its first 
unaffiliated customer. This is consistent with our practice to date and 
the methodology we have employed in past administrative reviews of S4 
in coils from Mexico. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 7710 (February 11, 2008) (2005-2006 Final Results), as 
amended, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: Amended 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 14215 
(March 17, 2008) (2005-2006 Amended Final Results. See also Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 73444 (December 12, 2005) 
and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 2.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of S4 in coils from Mexico to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared CEP sales made in 
the United States by both Mexinox USA and Ken-Mac to unaffiliated 
purchasers to NV as described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff 
Act), we compared individual CEPs to monthly weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act we considered 
all products produced by Mexinox S.A. covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section above, and

[[Page 45712]]

sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like product for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
We relied on nine characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in 
order of priority): (1) Grade; (2) cold/hot rolled; (3) gauge; (4) 
surface finish; (5) metallic coating; (6) non-metallic coating; (7) 
width; (8) temper; and (9) edge trim. Where there were no sales 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 and reporting instructions listed in 
the Department's original September 11, 2007, questionnaire.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, to the 
extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market 
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT 
is based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV 
is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which 
selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are 
derived. With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP 
LOT is defined as the level of the constructed sale from the exporter 
to the importer. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. 
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more 
remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes 
From Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8; see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-
Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 
2005), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality 
Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005). For CEP 
sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price 
after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of 
the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 
1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the claimed LOTs 
are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be 
similar. Conversely, if a party claims the LOTs are different for 
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: 
Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6.
    We obtained information from Mexinox regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales to both 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers. Mexinox provided a description 
of all selling activities performed, along with a flowchart and tables 
comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution and 
customer category for both markets. See Mexinox's October 3, 2007, 
section A questionnaire response at 33 through 39 and Attachments A-4-A 
through A-4-C; see also Mexinox's February 1, 2008, supplemental 
section A questionnaire response at 21 through 24 and Attachments A-20-
A and A-20-B.
    Mexinox sold S4 in coils to end-users and retailers/distributors in 
the home market and to end-users and distributors/service centers in 
the United States. For the home market, Mexinox identified two channels 
of distribution described as follows: (1) direct shipments (i.e., 
products produced to order) and (2) sales from inventory. Within each 
of these two channels of distribution, Mexinox S.A. made sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated distributors/retailers and end-users. See 
Mexinox's October 3, 2007, section A questionnaire response at 3 and 26 
through 27. We reviewed the intensity of all selling functions Mexinox 
claimed to perform for each channel of distribution and customer 
category. For certain functions, such as pre-sale technical assistance, 
processing of customer orders, sample analysis, prototypes and trial 
lots, freight and delivery, price negotiation/customer communications, 
sales calls and visits, and warranty services, the level of performance 
for both direct shipments and sales through inventory was identical 
across all types of customers. Only a few functions exhibited 
differences, including inventory maintenance/just-in-time performance, 
further processing, credit and collection, low volume orders and 
shipment of small packages. See Mexinox's February 1, 2008, 
supplemental section A questionnaire response at Attachment A-20. While 
we find differences in the levels of intensity performed for some of 
these functions, such differences are minor and do not establish 
distinct levels of trade in Mexico. Based on our analysis of all of 
Mexinox S.A.'s home market selling functions, we find all home market 
sales were made at the same LOT, the NV LOT.
    We then compared the NV LOT, based on the selling functions 
associated with the transactions between Mexinox S.A. and its customers 
in the home market, to the CEP LOT, which is based on the selling 
functions associated with the transaction between Mexinox S.A. and its 
affiliated importer, Mexinox USA. Our analysis indicates the selling 
functions performed for home market customers are either performed at a 
higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling 
functions performed for Mexinox USA. See Mexinox's October 3, 2007 
section A questionnaire response at 33 through 39 and Attachments A-4-A 
through A-4-C; see also Mexinox's February 1, 2008, supplemental 
section A questionnaire response at 21 through 24 and Attachment A-20. 
For example, in comparing Mexinox's selling functions, we find there 
are more functions performed in the home market which are not a part of 
CEP transactions (e.g., pre-sale technical assistance, sample analysis, 
prototypes and trial lots, price negotiation/customer communications, 
sales calls and visits, credit and collection, and warranty services). 
For selling functions performed for both home market sales and CEP 
sales (e.g., processing customer orders, freight and delivery 
arrangements), we find Mexinox S.A. actually performed each activity at 
a higher level of intensity in the home market. Based on Mexinox's 
responses, we note that CEP sales from Mexinox S.A. to Mexinox USA 
generally occur at the beginning of the distribution chain, 
representing essentially a logistical transfer of inventory that 
resembles ex-factory sales. In contrast, all sales in the home market 
occur closer to the end of the distribution chain and involve smaller

[[Page 45713]]

volumes and more customer interaction which, in turn, require the 
performance of more selling functions. See Mexinox's October 3, 2007, 
section A questionnaire response at 33 through 39 and Attachments A-4-A 
through A-4-C; see also Mexinox's February 1, 2008, supplemental 
section A questionnaire response at Attachment A-20. Based on the 
foregoing, we conclude the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage than the 
CEP LOT.
    Because we found the home market and U.S. sales were made at 
different LOTs, we examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset 
may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home 
market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market 
sales, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to 
identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home 
market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction. See 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we 
have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for 
determining a LOT adjustment. Because the data available do not form an 
appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, and because the NV LOT 
is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we have 
made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 
Tariff Act.

Constructed Export Price

    Mexinox indicated it made CEP sales through its U.S. affiliate, 
Mexinox USA, in the following four channels of distribution: (1) Direct 
shipments to unaffiliated customers; (2) stock sales from the San Luis 
Potosi (SLP) factory; (3) sales to unaffiliated customers through 
Mexinox USA's warehouse inventory; and (4) sales through Ken-Mac. See 
Mexinox's October 3, 2007, section A questionnaire response at 27 
through 31. Ken-Mac is an affiliated service center located in the 
United States which purchases S4 in coils produced by Mexinox S.A. and 
then resells the merchandise (after, in some instances, further 
manufacturing) to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is 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. We find Mexinox properly 
classified all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise as CEP 
transactions because such sales were made in the United States through 
Mexinox USA or Ken-Mac to unaffiliated purchasers. We based CEP on 
packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States sold by 
Mexinox USA or its affiliated reseller, Ken-Mac. We made adjustments 
for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates where applicable. We 
also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. These expenses included, where 
appropriate: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
inland insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 
brokerage, and U.S. warehousing expenses. As directed by section 
772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (i.e., credit costs, warranty 
expenses, and a certain expense of proprietary nature), commissions, 
inventory carrying costs, and other indirect selling expenses. We also 
made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Tariff Act. We used the expenses as reported by Mexinox made in 
connection with its U.S. sales, with the exception of the U.S. indirect 
selling expense ratio which we recalculated. See ``Analysis of Data 
Submitted by ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of S4 in Coils 
from Mexico'' (Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) from Maryanne Burke, 
Trade Analyst, to the File, dated July 30, 2008.
    For sales in which the material was sent to an unaffiliated U.S. 
processor, we made an adjustment based on the transaction-specific 
further-processing expenses incurred by Mexinox USA. In addition, the 
U.S. affiliated reseller Ken-Mac performed some further manufacturing 
for its sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers. For these sales, we 
deducted the cost of further processing in accordance with section 
772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act. In calculating the cost of further 
manufacturing for Ken-Mac, we relied upon Ken-Mac's reported cost of 
further manufacturing materials, labor and overhead. We also included 
amounts for further manufacturing general and administrative expenses 
(G&A), as reported in Mexinox's May 19, 2008, supplemental section D 
questionnaire response.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is 
greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Mexinox's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Because 
Mexinox's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for subject merchandise, we determined the home market was 
viable. See, e.g., Mexinox's April 7, 2008, supplemental questionnaire 
response covering sections A through C and E at Attachment A-26.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-
length prices are excluded from our analysis because we consider them 
to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See section 773(f)(2) of 
the Tariff Act; see also 19 CFR 351.102(b). Consistent with 19 CFR 
351.403(c) and (d) and agency practice, ``the Department may calculate 
NV based on sales to affiliates if satisfied that the transactions were 
made at arm's length.'' See China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 F. 
Supp. 2d 1339, 1365 (CIT 2003). To test whether the sales to affiliates 
were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a model-specific 
basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers, net of all direct selling expenses, billing adjustments, 
discounts and rebates, movement charges and packing. Where prices to 
the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 
percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to the 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 
69194 (November 15, 2002). We found both affiliated home market 
customers failed the arm's length test and, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we excluded sales to these affiliates from our 
analysis.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales of certain products made at prices 
below

[[Page 45714]]

the cost of production (COP) in the most recently completed review of 
S4 in coils from Mexico (see Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 35618, 35623 (June 21, 2006), unchanged in Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 76978 (December 22, 2006) 
(2004-2005 Final Results) we had reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for 
the determination of NV in this review for Mexinox may have been made 
at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Tariff Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we 
initiated a COP investigation of sales by Mexinox. We relied on home 
market sales and COP information provided by Mexinox in its 
questionnaire responses, except where noted below:
    ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH (TKN) and ThyssenKrupp AST, S.p.A. 
(TKAST), hot band producers affiliated with Mexinox, sold hot band to 
Mexinox USA, which in turn sold hot band to Mexinox S.A. Hot band is 
considered a major input to the production of S4 in coils. Section 
773(f)(3) of the Tariff Act, (the major input rule) states:

``in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons involving 
the production by one of such persons of a major input to the 
merchandise, the administering authority has reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that an amount represented as the value of such 
input is less than the cost of production of such input, then the 
administering authority may determine the value of the major input 
on the basis of the information available regarding such cost of 
production, if such cost is greater than the amount that would be 
determined for such input under paragraph (2).''

    Paragraph 2 of section 773(f) (transactions disregarded) states:

``a transaction directly or indirectly between affiliated persons 
may be disregarded if, in the case of any element of value required 
to be considered, the amount representing that element does not 
fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of merchandise 
under consideration in the market under consideration. If a 
transaction is disregarded under the preceding sentence and no other 
transactions are available for consideration, the determination of 
the amount shall be based on the information available as to what 
the amount would have been if the transaction had occurred between 
persons who are not affiliated.''

In accordance with the major input rule, and as stated in 2005-2006 
Final Results, it is the Department's normal practice to use all three 
elements of the major input rule (i.e., transfer price, COP and market 
price) where available.
    For these preliminary results, we evaluated the transfer prices 
between Mexinox and its affiliated hot band suppliers on a grade-
specific basis. For certain grades of hot band, all three elements of 
the major input analysis were available. These grades of hot band 
account for the majority of volume of hot band that Mexinox purchased 
from TKN and TKAST during the POR. As such, we find these purchases 
provide a reasonable basis for the Department to measure the 
preferential treatment, if any, given to Mexinox for purchases of hot 
band from TKN and TKAST during the POR. Therefore, we adjusted the 
reported costs to reflect the higher of transfer prices, COP, or market 
prices of hot band, where available. Additionally, we relied on these 
results to adjust the reported cost for grades where all three elements 
of the major input were not available. See the Department's Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results--ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. from LaVonne 
Clark, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, dated July 30, 2008 (Cost Calculation Memorandum).
    In certain cases, where market prices have not been available, the 
Department has constructed market prices in order to perform the major 
input analysis. See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final 
Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 
69663 (December 10, 2007) (PSF from Korea) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Product from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 27802 (May 17, 2007) (Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Thailand) and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 3. In the instant case we have applied the results of our 
analysis of those grades where market prices were available to those 
grades where market prices were not available. We find this approach to 
be reasonable because the grades where market prices are available 
constitute the majority of hot band purchased by Mexinox from the 
affiliated parties. As such, these purchases provide reasonable grounds 
to determine the arm's length nature of purchases between Mexinox and 
its affiliates during the POR. For further details, see Cost 
Calculation Memorandum.
    Because we have determined that shorter cost periods are 
appropriate for the COP analysis of austenitic grades, we have 
performed the cost-based part of the major input analysis by quarter 
for all grades of austenitic hot band. For all other grades of hot 
band, we have performed the cost-based part of the major input analysis 
on a POR basis.
    We also revised Mexinox's reported COP to include depreciation 
expenses related to a newly installed production line. We recalculated 
Mexinox's G&A expense rate to include employee profit sharing in the 
numerator, and adjusted for a certain provision accounted for during a 
prior period. We revised Mexinox's financial expense ratio to exclude 
certain interest income from accounts receivable and adjusted 
ThyssenKrupp AG's cost of goods sold to exclude packing expenses. See 
Cost Calculation Memorandum.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, whether, within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. As noted in section 773(b)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act, prices are 
considered to provide for recovery of costs if such prices are above 
the weighted average per-unit COP for the period of investigation or 
review. In the instant case, we have relied on Mexinox's reported 
quarterly costs of austenitic grades of merchandise. Mexinox calculated 
the reported quarterly costs using a methodology that is similar to 
that used by the Department in cases of high-inflation (see e.g. Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Indonesia, 64 FR 
73164 (December 29, 1999) at Comment 1). Because this methodology 
restates the quarterly costs on an equivalent basis, by calculating an 
annual weighted-average COP for the POR and then restating it to each 
respective quarter, we find Mexinox's reported quarterly costs meet the 
requirements of section 773(b)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act.
    Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of 
a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-
cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more

[[Page 45715]]

of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices 
less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) 
they were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial 
quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 
Tariff Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-
average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act.
    Our cost test for Mexinox revealed that, for home market sales of 
certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were 
at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our 
analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test 
also indicated that for home market sales of other models, more than 20 
percent were sold at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we excluded these below-cost sales 
from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis 
for determining NV.

D. Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, we calculated 
CV based on the sum of Mexinox's material and fabrication costs, SG&A 
expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP 
component of CV as described above in the ``Cost of Production 
Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on 
the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

E. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or 
prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length. 
Mexinox S.A. reported home market sales in Mexican pesos, but noted 
certain home market sales were invoiced in U.S. dollars during the POR. 
See Mexinox's October 29, 2007, section B questionnaire response at B-
26 and B-27. In our margin calculation we used the currency of the sale 
invoice at issue and applied the relevant adjustments in the actual 
currency invoiced or incurred by Mexinox. We accounted for billing 
adjustments, discounts, and rebates, where appropriate. We also made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, insurance, 
handling, and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Tariff Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost 
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise compared pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff 
Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses. As noted 
above in the ``Level of Trade'' section of this notice, we also made an 
adjustment for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) 
of the Tariff Act. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
(B) of the Tariff Act.
    We used Mexinox's home market adjustments and deductions as 
reported, except for certain handling expenses and imputed credit 
expenses. We have recalculated the handling expenses incurred by 
Mexinox's home market affiliate, Mexinox Trading, and applied the 
revised ratio to those home market sales for which Mexinox reported a 
handling expense. We calculated imputed credit expenses based on the 
short-term borrowing rate associated with the currency of each home 
market sale transaction. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Our 
methodology for calculating handling charges and imputed credit 
expenses is consistent with past administrative reviews of this case. 
See, e.g., 2005-2006 Final Results, as amended, and 2004-2005 Final 
Results.

F. Price-to-CV Comparisons

    Where we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we 
based NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the 
Tariff Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2006 
through June 30, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted
                                                              average
                  Manufacturer exporter                       margin
                                                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V........................            2.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 
days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the 
date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the 
Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties 
may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in the case briefs 
may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for 
submitting the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 
argument in these proceedings 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. Further, parties submitting 
case briefs and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues in any such argument or at a hearing, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Duty Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific ad 
valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales 
made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to 
calculate those duties. The total customs value is based on the entered 
value reported by Mexinox for all U.S. entries of subject merchandise 
initially purchased for consumption to the United States made during 
the POR. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. In

[[Page 45716]]

accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP on or after 41 days following 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). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results for 
which the reviewed company did not know their merchandise was destined 
for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate 
for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective for all shipments of S4 in coils from Mexico entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 
the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results 
of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent (de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), the cash deposit 
will be zero; (2) for previously 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, 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 period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the all-others 
rate of 30.85 percent, which is the all-others rate established in the 
LTFV investigation. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico, 64 FR 40560 (July 27, 1999). 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

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

    Dated: July 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-17987 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P