Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75398-75400 [E8-29410]

Download as PDF 75398 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 239 / Thursday, December 11, 2008 / Notices Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of purified CMC from Finland entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): 1) The cash deposit rate for CP Kelco will be the rate established in the final results of this review; 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 less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the all-others rate of 6.65 percent from the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden, 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:27 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 217001 with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that issubject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson or George McMahon at (202) 482–3797 or (202) 482–1167, respectively; Office of AD/CVD Operations 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSPC from Belgium. See Preliminary Results. On September 15, 2008, the Department published a notice extending the deadline of the final results to December 3, 2008. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 53190 (September 15, 2008). Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have occurred. On October 17, 2008, the Department issued a Post– Preliminary Determination which applied an alternative cost–averaging methodology. See Memorandum from Angela Strom to Neal Halper titled, ‘‘Proposed Adjustments to the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data–Ugine and ALZ Belgium,’’ dated October 17, 2008 (Post–Preliminary Determination). The Department extended the briefing schedule to provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the post– preliminary results. Case and rebuttal briefs were timely filed by the respondent, U&A Belgium, and Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL– CIO/CLC (collectively, the petitioners).1 The issues raised in all case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the memorandum titled, ‘‘Issues and Decisions for the Final Results of the Sixth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium (2006– 2007)’’, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (December 3, 2008) (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 of the Department of 1 Case briefs and rebuttal briefs were submitted by the following domestic interested parties and respondent: on October 24, 2008, the petitioners filed a case brief (the Petitioners’ Case Brief); on October 29, 2008, the petitioners filed a rebuttal brief (the Petitioners’ Rebuttal Brief); on October 24, 2008, U&A Belgium submitted a case brief (U&A Belgium’s Case Brief); and on October 29, 2008, U&A Belgium submitted a rebuttal brief (U&A Belgium’s Rebuttal Brief). Dated: December 4, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Comments: Comment 1: Whether to Increase CP Kelco Oy’s Cost of Production for Shut-down Costs Incurred by its Swedish Affiliate [FR Doc. E8–29388 Filed 12–10–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–423–808) Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 32298 (June 6, 2008) (Preliminary Results). This review covers one manufacturer/ exporter of the subject merchandise: Ugine & ALZ Belgium (U&A Belgium). The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the Preliminary Results. For the final dumping margins see the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: PO 00000 Frm 00015 December 11, 2008. Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 239 / Thursday, December 11, 2008 / Notices Commerce main building and can be accessed directly at (http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html). The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate 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 plate products are flat–rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold–rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Plate not in coils; (2) Plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled; (3) Sheet and strip; and (4) Flat bars. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 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, 7220.90.00.10, 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 written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is dispositive. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the calculations for the final dumping margin. The changes made since the Preliminary Results are listed under the ‘‘List of Issues’’ which is appended to this notice. The changes are discussed in detail in the memorandum to the File Through James Terpstra from George McMahon titled, ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for Ugine & ALZ, N.V. Belgium for the Final Results of the Sixth Administrative Review of VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:27 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 217001 Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (SSPC) from Belgium,’’ dated December 3, 2008 (Final Sales Analysis Memorandum), and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper from Angela Strom titled, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results – Ugine and ALZ Belgium,’’ dated December 3, 2008 (Final Cost Calculation Memorandum). On January 28, 2008, U&A Belgium requested that the Department use quarterly weighted–average costs in its antidumping analysis arguing that the Department’s normal annual average cost approach would result in distortions and inappropriate comparisons in our margin calculation. On May 9, 2008, the Department issued a general request for comment on the issue of shorter cost averaging periods in a Federal Register notice with a deadline for submission of comments of June 9, 2008.2 The preliminary results of this administrative review were due prior to the comment deadline; thus, we found it was appropriate to follow our normal methodology of using U&A Belgium’s annual weighted–average costs in our margin calculation. See Preliminary Results. However, we stated in the Preliminary Results that we intended to consider this issue further and provide a memorandum discussing the results of our analysis in order to give parties an opportunity to comment before the final results. On October 17, 2008, we provided a post–preliminary calculation memorandum, which disclosed our intention to adopt an alternative cost averaging methodology in these final results. See Post–Preliminary Determination. In the Post–Preliminary Determination, the Department concluded that our alternative cost averaging approach is warranted in this case for the following reasons: 1) the changes in the cost of manufacturing experienced by U&A Belgium during the POR was clearly significant; and, 2) that the alloy surcharge mechanism demonstrates that costs were reasonably linked to sales prices during the POR. We have made no cost adjustments to our post–preliminary calculations in these final results. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted– 2 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). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 75399 average margin exists for the period May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007: Manufacturer/Exporter Ugine & ALZ Belgium ... Margin (percent) 7.53 Duty Assessment The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. 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. To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer’s/ customer’s entries during the review period. Where an importer (or customer)- specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per–unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after 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). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 75400 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 239 / Thursday, December 11, 2008 / Notices others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following antidumping duty deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of SSPC from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for U&A Belgium, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less–than-fair–value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 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 subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 9.86 percent ad valorem, the ‘‘all– others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 1999). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:27 Dec 10, 2008 Jkt 217001 Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). Timely written notification of the return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 3, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: APPENDIX Background List of Issues Comment 1: Whether the Disallowance of Offsets for Non–Dumped Sales is in Accordance with the Statute and the International Obligations of the United States Comment 2: Whether to Revise the Date of Sale for Certain Home Market Sales Comment 3: Whether to Incorporate the Department’s Findings in the Ongoing Scope Inquiry Comment 4: Whether to apply an Alternative Cost–Averaging Methodology [FR Doc. E8–29410 Filed 12–10–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S International Trade Administration (A–475–818) Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Final Results of the Eleventh Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the eleventh administrative review for the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. The review covers four manufacturers/exporters: F. Divella SpA (Divella), Pasta Zara SpA 1 and Pasta Zara SpA 2 (collectively, Zara), Pastificio Di Martino Gaetano & F. lli SrL (Gaetano), and Pastificio Felicetti SrL (Felicetti). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through June 30, Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 On August 6, 2008, the Department published the preliminary results of the eleventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Preliminary Results of Eleventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45716 (August 6, 2008) (Preliminary Results). Petitioners2, Divella, and Zara submitted case briefs on October 20, 2008, and rebuttal briefs on October 27, 2008. On August 15, 2008, Divella and Zara requested a hearing. A public hearing was held on October 29, 2008. Scope of the Order DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PO 00000 2007. Divella and Zara were selected as mandatory respondents.1 As a result of our analysis of the comments received, the final results differ from the preliminary results for Zara, Gaetano and Felicetti. The final weighted–average dumping margins for these companies are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore (Zara) and Christopher Hargett (Divella), 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 and (202) 482–4161, respectively. Sfmt 4703 Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non–egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non–egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic 1 See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, from Team regarding Selection of Respondents for Individual Review, October 15, 2007. 2 Petitioners are New World Pasta Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company, and American Italian Pasta Company. E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 239 (Thursday, December 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75398-75400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29410]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-423-808)


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 6, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium. See Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils From Belgium: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 32298 (June 6, 2008) (Preliminary 
Results). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise: Ugine & ALZ Belgium (U&A Belgium). The period of review 
(POR) is May 1, 2006, through April 30, 2007.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes to the Preliminary Results. For the final dumping margins see 
the ``Final Results of Review'' section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson or George McMahon at 
(202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1167, respectively; Office of AD/CVD 
Operations 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the sixth administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on SSPC from Belgium. See Preliminary Results. 
On September 15, 2008, the Department published a notice extending the 
deadline of the final results to December 3, 2008. See Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils From Belgium: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 53190 (September 15, 
2008). Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have 
occurred. On October 17, 2008, the Department issued a Post-Preliminary 
Determination which applied an alternative cost-averaging methodology. 
See Memorandum from Angela Strom to Neal Halper titled, ``Proposed 
Adjustments to the Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data-Ugine 
and ALZ Belgium,'' dated October 17, 2008 (Post-Preliminary 
Determination).
    The Department extended the briefing schedule to provide interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on the post-preliminary results. Case 
and rebuttal briefs were timely filed by the respondent, U&A Belgium, 
and Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto 
Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, and the 
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, the 
petitioners).\1\
    The issues raised in all case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the memorandum titled, 
``Issues and Decisions for the Final Results of the Sixth 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils from Belgium (2006-2007)'', from Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration (December 3, 2008) (Decision Memorandum), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the 
Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum 
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 of the 
Department of

[[Page 75399]]

Commerce main building and can be accessed directly at (http://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html). The paper copy and electronic version 
of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate 
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 plate products are flat-rolled 
products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in 
coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-
rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified 
dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope 
of this order are the following: (1) Plate not in coils; (2) Plate that 
is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled; (3) Sheet and strip; and (4) Flat bars.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at 
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 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, 7220.90.00.10, 
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 
written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is 
dispositive.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the calculations for the final dumping margin. The changes 
made since the Preliminary Results are listed under the ``List of 
Issues'' which is appended to this notice. The changes are discussed in 
detail in the memorandum to the File Through James Terpstra from George 
McMahon titled, ``Analysis Memorandum for Ugine & ALZ, N.V. Belgium for 
the Final Results of the Sixth Administrative Review of Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils (SSPC) from Belgium,'' dated December 3, 2008 (Final 
Sales Analysis Memorandum), and Memorandum to Neal M. Halper from 
Angela Strom titled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results - Ugine and ALZ 
Belgium,'' dated December 3, 2008 (Final Cost Calculation Memorandum).
    On January 28, 2008, U&A Belgium requested that the Department use 
quarterly weighted-average costs in its antidumping analysis arguing 
that the Department's normal annual average cost approach would result 
in distortions and inappropriate comparisons in our margin calculation. 
On May 9, 2008, the Department issued a general request for comment on 
the issue of shorter cost averaging periods in a Federal Register 
notice with a deadline for submission of comments of June 9, 2008.\2\ 
The preliminary results of this administrative review were due prior to 
the comment deadline; thus, we found it was appropriate to follow our 
normal methodology of using U&A Belgium's annual weighted-average costs 
in our margin calculation. See Preliminary Results. However, we stated 
in the Preliminary Results that we intended to consider this issue 
further and provide a memorandum discussing the results of our analysis 
in order to give parties an opportunity to comment before the final 
results.
    On October 17, 2008, we provided a post-preliminary calculation 
memorandum, which disclosed our intention to adopt an alternative cost 
averaging methodology in these final results. See Post-Preliminary 
Determination. In the Post-Preliminary Determination, the Department 
concluded that our alternative cost averaging approach is warranted in 
this case for the following reasons: 1) the changes in the cost of 
manufacturing experienced by U&A Belgium during the POR was clearly 
significant; and, 2) that the alloy surcharge mechanism demonstrates 
that costs were reasonably linked to sales prices during the POR. We 
have made no cost adjustments to our post-preliminary calculations in 
these final results.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugine & ALZ Belgium.................................                7.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the 
subject merchandise for each respondent. 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.
    To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period 
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or 
customer)- specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing 
this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or 
customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 
greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable 
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of 
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an 
importer (or customer)- specific ad valorem rate is greater than de 
minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). The Department will 
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after 
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). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-

[[Page 75400]]

others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) 
involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). The 
Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 
days after publication of these final results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following antidumping duty deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of SSPC from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of these final 
results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for U&A 
Belgium, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate established for the most 
recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, a prior review, or the 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 subject merchandise; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this 
review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit 
rate will be 9.86 percent ad valorem, the ``all-others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate 
in Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15476 (March 31, 1999). These deposit 
rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 3, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX

List of Issues

Comment 1: Whether the Disallowance of Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales is 
in Accordance with the Statute and the International Obligations of the 
United States
Comment 2: Whether to Revise the Date of Sale for Certain Home Market 
Sales
Comment 3: Whether to Incorporate the Department's Findings in the 
Ongoing Scope Inquiry
Comment 4: Whether to apply an Alternative Cost-Averaging Methodology
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Case briefs and rebuttal briefs were submitted by the 
following domestic interested parties and respondent: on October 24, 
2008, the petitioners filed a case brief (the Petitioners' Case 
Brief); on October 29, 2008, the petitioners filed a rebuttal brief 
(the Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief); on October 24, 2008, U&A Belgium 
submitted a case brief (U&A Belgium's Case Brief); and on October 
29, 2008, U&A Belgium submitted a rebuttal brief (U&A Belgium's 
Rebuttal Brief).
    \2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-29410 Filed 12-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S