Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65833-65837 [E8-26395]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65833-65837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-274-804]


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On November 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Trinidad and 
Tobago for the period of review (POR) October 1, 2006, through 
September 30, 2007.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, ArcelorMittal Point 
Lisas Limited,\1\ and its affiliate Mittal Steel North America Inc. 
(MSNA) (collectively, AMPL) made sales of subject merchandise at less 
than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the 
final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited is the successor-in-
interest to Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited. See Carbon and Certain 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 73 FR 
30052 (May 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days 
after publication of the preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: November 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Jolanta Lawska, 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-
3692 or (202) 482-8362, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 
Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (Wire Rod Orders). On October 1, 2007, 
we published in the Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 55741.
    We received timely requests for review from petitioners,\2\ and 
AMPL, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). AMPL also requested that 
the Department revoke the antidumping duty order pursuant to 19 CFR

[[Page 65834]]

351.222(b). On November 26, 2007, the Department published the notice 
of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering 
the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007, naming AMPL as 
the respondent. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 65938 
(November 26, 2007). On November 28, 2007, we sent the initial 
questionnaire covering sections A through D to AMPL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners are Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. (formerly 
Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., 
North Star Steel Texas, Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut, Inc., and 
Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (collectively, petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 4, 2007, petitioners requested that the Department 
obtain from AMPL necessary information in order to be able to determine 
the proper date of sale and a U.S. sales database that reflects the 
proper date of sale.
    On February 4, 2008, AMPL submitted its sections A through C 
response to the Department's questionnaire. On February 19, 2008, AMPL 
submitted its section D response to the Department's questionnaire.
    On February 27, 2008, the Department sent AMPL a supplemental 
questionnaire for sections A through C. We received the response to the 
supplemental questionnaire on March 26, 2008.
    The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D on 
May 21, 2008, and received the response on June 25, 2008. On August 13, 
2008, the Department issued a second supplemental section D 
questionnaire, and on August 27, 2008, AMPL submitted its response.
    On June 13, 2008, AMPL withdrew its request for revocation of the 
antidumping duty order because AMPL, after further analysis, determined 
that its estimated dumping margin is greater than de minimis, and hence 
it does not satisfy the requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid 
cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products 
possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for 
(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball 
bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also 
excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that 
contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent 
or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more 
of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent 
of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord 
quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod 
measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional 
diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 
70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no 
non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable 
inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation 
per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) 
having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater 
than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or 
less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the 
following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more 
of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or 
less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or 
less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium.
    Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire 
bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm 
in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 
1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be 
deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis--that is, 
the direction of rolling--of the rod) over thickness (measured on the 
same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is 
equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes 
of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the 
largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a 
direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement 
methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord 
quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that 
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
July 24, 2003.
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber 
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the 
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of 
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use 
certification for the importation of such products may be required. 
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally 
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope.
    The products under review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 
7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 
7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 
7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 
7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,

[[Page 65835]]

the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Effective July 1, 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject 
merchandise. See https://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/
toc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Sales of Damaged Merchandise

    During the POR, AMPL had a small volume of subject merchandise that 
was damaged during shipment to the United States. According to AMPL, 
the original customer refused the defective merchandise, which AMPL 
sold ``as is'' in the U.S. market. AMPL did not include these sales in 
its questionnaire response; AMPL stated these sales were not reported 
because they were outside the ordinary course of trade. However, in a 
supplemental questionnaire response, AMPL did provide the relevant 
details of the sale, including price and a copy of the invoice.
    The statutory provisions concerning ordinary course of trade are 
only applicable to the calculation of NV based on home-market sales and 
not to the calculation of the constructed export price (CEP) based on 
U.S. sales; thus, this is not a basis for excluding these U.S. 
transactions. See Notice of Final Results of the Tenth Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 
Korea, 70 FR 12443 (March 14, 2005), and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum at Discussion of Issues--Company-Specific Comment 
6. Further, in antidumping duty administrative reviews we are assessing 
duties on all entries of subject merchandise. Therefore, we normally 
include all sales of subject merchandise during the period. 
Accordingly, we have included all sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States in the antidumping margin calculations. See Preliminary 
Sales Calculation Memorandum for ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited 
(Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum), dated October 30, 2008, 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) at the Department, 
Room 1117.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), all products produced by the respondent covered by 
the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold in 
Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like 
product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, 
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter 
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the 
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to 
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago 
were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export 
price (EP) or CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and 
Constructed 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 and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We 
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter 
outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP 
for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with 
the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made 
the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of 
the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the 
applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to 
reflect discounts and increased the prices to reflect billing 
adjustments.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland 
freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance, 
survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses 
from arrival to delivery.
    For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses 
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit and 
warranty). In addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that 
related to economic activity in the United States. These expenses 
include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S. 
distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in 
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

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

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which 
AMPL participated, the Department found that the respondent made sales 
in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 
36955, 36957 (July 6, 2007), unchanged in the Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 72 FR 62824 (November 7, 2007). 
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 
Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that AMPL made sales of wire rod in Trinidad and Tobago at 
prices below the cost of production (COP) in this administrative 
review. As a result, we initiated a COP inquiry for AMPL.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative expenses, packing expenses, and interest 
expense. We did not make any

[[Page 65836]]

adjustments to AMPL's submitted COP data.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales 
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing 
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring 
during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to 
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded 
below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the 
basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for 
inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In 
addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly 
linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to NV were claimed 
or allowed.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for 
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average 
costs.

D. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. 
In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 
on home market), we consider the starting prices before any 
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. 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 an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the 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 Act (the CEP-offset provision).
    In the home market, AMPL reported sales made through one LOT 
corresponding to one channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, AMPL 
reported two LOTs corresponding to two channels of distribution. AMPL 
made sales to an unaffiliated trading company and through its U.S. 
affiliates. We have determined that the sales made by AMPL directly to 
U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by AMPL's affiliated U.S. 
resellers constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have found that U.S. 
sales and home market sales were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we 
did not find it necessary to make an LOT adjustment or CEP offset. For 
further explanation of our LOT analysis see the Preliminary Sales 
Calculation Memorandum.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Producer/Manufacturer                   average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPL....................................................           1.56%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs limited 
to issues raised in the case briefs may be filed no later than 35 days 
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a 
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide 
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any 
such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, within 
120 days of publication of these preliminary results. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rate

    The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 
Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the 
subject merchandise.

[[Page 65837]]

Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if 
any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results 
are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment 
rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, 
we calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject 
merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to 
each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the 
sales to that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final 
results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by AMPL for which AMPL did not know 
that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the 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 AMPL, we divided the total 
dumping margin by the total net value for AMPL's sales during the 
review period.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for AMPL 
will be the rate 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 rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, 
or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 
and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the all-others rate established in 
the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod Orders. These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

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 increase the 
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of 
antidumping duties reimbursed.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-26395 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P