Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77618-77622 [E8-30268]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
77618
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices
to CBP 15 days after the publication of
the final results of review.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of
Antidumping Duties). This clarification
will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced
by DSM for which DSM did not know
its merchandise was destined for the
United States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries of DSM–produced merchandise
at the all–others rate if there is no rate
for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see
Assessment of Antidumping Duties.
Cash–Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of the
notice of final results of administrative
review for all shipments of steel plate
from Korea entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the date of publication, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the
cash–deposit rate for DSM will be the
rate established in the final results of
this review; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed
above, the cash–deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review,
or the less–than-fair–value investigation
but the manufacturer is, the cash–
deposit rate will be the rate established
for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if
neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer has its own rate, the cash–
deposit rate will be 0.98 percent, the
all–others rate established in the LTFV
investigation,3 adjusted for the export–
subsidy rate in the companion
countervailing duty investigation.4 This
deposit requirement, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
3 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Korea, 64
FR 73196, 73214 (December 29, 1999). See also
Memorandum To The File from Lyn Johnson
concerning All-Others Rate, dated December 12,
2008.
4 See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea, 64
FR 73176, 731818-86 (December 29, 1999), as
amended in Notice of Amended Final
Determinations: Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate From India and the Republic of
Korea, 65 FR 6587, 6588 (February 10, 2000).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:29 Dec 18, 2008
Jkt 217001
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of
administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 12, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E8–30272 Filed 12–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–533–820)
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From India: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
petitioners,1 the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping order on certain hot–
rolled carbon steel flat products from
India (‘‘Indian Hot–Rolled’’). This
review covers one manufacturer and
exporter of the subject merchandise:
Essar Steel Limited (‘‘Essar’’). The
Department has preliminarily
determined that during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’), Essar 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy
Zhang or James Terpstra, AD/CVD
1 The petitioners are the United States Steel
Corporation Steel and Nucor Corporation
(collectively ‘‘petitioners’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Operations Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1168 and (202)
482–3965, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 3, 2001, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on Indian Hot–
Rolled. See Notice of Amended Final
Antidumping Duty Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot–
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001)
(‘‘Amended Final Determination’’). On
December 3, 2007, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review’’ of the
antidumping duty order on Indian Hot–
Rolled. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 72
FR 69889 (December 3, 2007). On
December 31, 2007, petitioners
requested an administrative review in
the antidumping duty order on Indian
Hot–Rolled, which were produced or
exported by Ispat Industries Limited
(‘‘Ispat’’), JSW Steel Limited (‘‘JSW’’),
Tata Steel Limited (‘‘Tata’’), and Essar.
On January 28, 2008, the Department
published a notice of initiation of
antidumping duty administrative review
of Indian Hot–Rolled for the period
December 1, 2006, through November
30, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 2008)
(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On February 25,
2008, the Department issued a
memorandum informing the interested
parties of the Department’s intention to
limit the number of companies it would
examine in this review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’).2 On
February 26–27, 2008, Ispat, Tata, and
JSW each informed the Department that
they did not have shipments of the
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. On August 20,
2 See Memorandum to File, Re: ‘‘2006-2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
India,’’ Subject: ‘‘Customs and Border Protection
Data for Selection of Respondents for Individual
Review,’’ from Cindy Robinson, Senior Financial
Analyst, through James Terpstra, Program Manager,
and Melissa Skinner, Office Director, Office 3, AD/
CVD Operations, dated February 25, 2008 (‘‘HotRolled Memo’’).
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices
2008, the Department published a notice
extending the deadline for the
preliminary results from September 1,
2008, to October 31, 2008. In this notice
the Department also published its intent
to rescind this administrative review in
part with respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata.
See Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products from India: Notice of
Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review in Part and
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 73 FR 49169
(August 20, 2008) (‘‘Notice of Intent to
Rescind and Prelim Extension’’).
On April 11, 2008, the Department
issued an antidumping questionnaire to
Essar. The Department received
responses to the original questionnaire
from Essar. The Department
subsequently issued supplemental
questionnaires to Essar and received
responses to the same.
On September 2, 2008, the
Department sent a letter to all interested
parties inviting comment on Draft
Customs Instructions related to the
Department’s intent to rescind the
administrative review with respect to
Ispat, JSW and Tata. See Memorandum
to File, Re: ‘‘Draft Customs Instructions
– Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India,’’ dated September
2, 2008. The Department did not receive
comments from any interested party. On
November 3, 2008, the Department
published a notice of rescission of this
administrative review in part with
respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata. See
Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India: Notice of
Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
65291 (November 3, 2008).
On October 28, 2008, the Department
again extended the time period for
issuing the preliminary results of the
administrative review from October 31,
2008, to December 12, 2008. See Certain
Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India: Notice of Extension of Time
Limits for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 63945 (October 28, 2008).
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is
December 1, 2006, through November
30, 2007.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order
is certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products of a rectangular shape, of a
width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither
clad, plated, nor coated with metal and
whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other non–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:25 Dec 18, 2008
Jkt 217001
metallic substances, in coils (whether or
not in successively superimposed
layers), regardless of thickness, and in
straight lengths, of a thickness of less
than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring
at least 10 times the thickness.
Universal mill plate (i.e., flat–rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a
closed box pass, of a width exceeding
150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm,
and of a thickness of not less than 4
mm, not in coils and without patterns
in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0
mm is not included within the scope of
this order.
Specifically included in the scope of
this order are vacuum–degassed, fully
stabilized (commonly referred to as
interstitial–free (‘‘IF’’)) steels, high–
strength low–alloy (‘‘HSLA’’) steels, and
the substrate for motor lamination
steels. IF steels are recognized as low–
carbon steels with micro–alloying levels
of elements such as titanium or niobium
(also commonly referred to as
columbium), or both, added to stabilize
carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA
steels are recognized as steels with
micro–alloying levels of elements such
as chromium, copper, niobium,
vanadium, and molybdenum. The
substrate for motor lamination steels
contains micro–alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope
of this order, regardless of definitions in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products
in which: i) iron predominates, by
weight, over each of the other contained
elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none
of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, respectively
indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical
and chemical description provided
above are within the scope of this order
unless otherwise excluded. The
following products, by way of example,
are outside or specifically excluded
from the scope of this order:
• Alloy hot–rolled carbon steel
products in which at least one of
the chemical elements exceeds
those listed above (including, e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77619
American Society for Testing and
Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) specifications
A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)).
• Society of Automotive Engineers
(‘‘SAE’’)/American Iron & Steel
Institute (‘‘AISI’’) grades of series
2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in
the HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the
HTSUS.
• Silico–manganese (as defined in the
HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel
with a silicon level exceeding 2.25
percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and
A736.
• United States Steel (‘‘USS’’)
Abrasion–resistant steels (USS AR
400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or
otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM
specification (sample specifications:
ASTM A506, A507).
• Non–rectangular shapes, not in
coils, which are the result of having
been processed by cutting or
stamping and which have assumed
the character of articles or products
classified outside chapter 72 of the
HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,
7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,
7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,
7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,
7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,
7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,
7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90,
7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00,
7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90.
Certain hot–rolled carbon steel covered
by this order, including: vacuum–
degassed fully stabilized; high–strength
low–alloy; and the substrate for motor
lamination steel may also enter under
the following tariff numbers:
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00,
7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,
7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00,
7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and
7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00,
7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
77620
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices
7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
merchandise subject to this order is
dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all Indian Hot–
Rolled produced by the respondent,
covered by the scope of the order, and
sold in the home market during the POR
to be foreign like product for the
purpose of determining appropriate
product comparisons to Indian Hot–
Rolled sold in the United States.
Where there were no sales in the
ordinary course of trade of identical
merchandise in the home market to
compare to U.S. sales, we compared
U.S. sales to the next most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed in Appendix V of
the Department’s antidumping
questionnaire. In making the product
comparisons, we matched foreign like
products based on the Appendix V
physical characteristics reported by
each respondent. Where sales were
made in the home market on a different
weight basis from the U.S. market
(theoretical versus actual weight), we
converted all quantities to the same
weight basis, using the conversion
factors supplied by the respondents,
before making our fair–value
comparisons.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of Indian
Hot–Rolled by the respondents to the
United States were made at less than
NV, we compared the export price
(‘‘EP’’) to the NV, as described in the
‘‘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, where
there were sales made in the ordinary
course of trade, as discussed in the
‘‘Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’)’’ section
below. See the December 12, 2008,
Preliminary Sales Calculation
Memorandum for Essar (Calculation
Memorandum for Essar); the public
version of which is on file in the Central
Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the
main Department building.
Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP
as ‘‘the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by
the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:29 Dec 18, 2008
Jkt 217001
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States or to an unaffiliated
purchaser for exportation to the United
States, as adjusted under subsection (c)
of this section.’’ During the POR, Essar
produced and sold subject merchandise
to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States prior to importation.
Therefore, we have applied the EP
methodology.
We based EP on the packed price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. We made deductions, as
appropriate, for billing adjustments. We
also made deductions for movement
expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, we
made deductions for foreign inland
freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign
brokerage and handling, international
freight, U.S. brokerage and handling,
and U.S. customs duties. In addition, in
accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of
the Act, when appropriate, we increased
EP, by an amount equal to the
countervailing duty rate attributed to
export subsidies in the most recently
completed administrative review of the
countervailing duty order applicable to
the POR for Essar.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the
aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the
quantity of the foreign like product sold
by each respondent in the exporting
country was sufficient to permit a
proper comparison with the sales of the
subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we
based NV on the price at which the
foreign like product was first sold for
consumption in the home market, in the
usual commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade.
Where appropriate, in accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we
deducted from the starting price inland
freight (offset, where applicable, by
freight revenue), inland insurance, and
packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c),
we deducted rebates and discounts. We
also increased NV by U.S. packing costs
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A)
of the Act. For comparisons to EP,
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we
made circumstance–of-sale adjustments
for credit expenses, bank charges and
commissions. In accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we
based NV on sales at the same level of
trade as the EP. See the ‘‘Level of Trade’’
section below.
For purposes of calculating NV,
section 771(16) of the Act defines
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘foreign like product’’ as merchandise
which is either (1) identical or (2)
similar to the merchandise sold in the
United States. When there are no
identical products sold in the home
market, the products which are most
similar to the product sold in the United
States are identified. For the non–
identical or most similar products
which are identified based on the
Department’s product matching criteria,
an adjustment is made to the home
market sales price to account for the
actual physical differences between the
products sold in the United States and
the home market. See section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.411.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined
NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade
(‘‘LOT’’) as the EP sales, to the extent
practicable. When there were no sales at
the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales
to comparison market sales at a different
LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to
determine whether EP sales and NV
sales were at different LOTs, we
examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the producer and
the customers. If the comparison market
sales are at a different LOT and the
differences affect price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between sales at
different LOTs in the country in which
NV is determined, we will make an LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act.
Essar reported different channels of
distribution in the home market;
however, based on our analysis of the
selling functions performed for each
channel, we found one level of trade for
Essar. In the U.S. market, Essar reported
one channel of distribution and one
LOT for EP sales. We evaluated the core
selling function categories in the U.S.
and home market LOTs and found that
each of the core selling functions (i.e.,
sales promotion, order processing, and
warranty and technical support) were
performed in both the U.S. and home
markets. Although there are differences
in the type of sales and marketing
services provided for each market, we
did not find this to be a material selling
function distinction significant enough
to warrant a separate LOT. Therefore,
after analyzing the selling functions
performed in each market, we find that
the distinctions in selling functions are
not material and thus, that the home
market and U.S. LOTs are the same.
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices
Accordingly, there is no basis for
making a LOT under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.412(e). For a detailed description of
our LOT methodology and a summary of
company–specific LOT findings for
these preliminary results, see
Calculation Memorandum for Essar.
Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’)
A. Calculation of COP
In the most recently completed
administrative review in which Essar
participated, the Department
determined that Essar sold foreign like
product at prices below the cost of
producing the merchandise and
excluded such sales from the
calculation of NV. See Certain Hot–
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 74267 (December 3, 2007)
unchanged in the final results, Certain
Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
From India: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 31961 (June 5, 2008). As
a result, the Department determined that
there are reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect that during the instant POR,
Essar sold foreign like product at prices
below the cost of producing the
merchandise. See section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the
Department initiated a sales–below-cost
inquiry with respect to Essar.
We calculated a company–specific
COP for Essar based on the sum of
Essar’s cost of materials and fabrication
for the foreign like product, plus
amounts for home–market selling
expenses, selling, general and
administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and
packing costs in accordance with
section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We adjusted
Essar’s reported costs to reflect the
actual cost of iron ore pellets obtained
from its Hygrade Pellets division, but
have denied the claimed offset to the
reported costs for profits allegedly
earned by its Steelco Gujarat division on
services provided during the cost
reporting period.
B. Test of Home–Market Prices
In determining whether to disregard
home market sales made at prices below
the COP, as required under sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, we
compared the weighted–average COP to
home market sales of the foreign like
product and examined whether (1)
within an extended period of time, such
sales were made in substantial
quantities, and (2) such sales were made
at prices which permitted the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:29 Dec 18, 2008
Jkt 217001
of time. On a product–specific basis, we
compared the COP to the home market
prices (not including Value Added Tax),
less any applicable movement charges,
discounts, and rebates.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the
Act, we may disregard below–COP sales
in the determination of NV if these sales
have been made within an extended
period of time in substantial quantities
and were not at prices which permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. Where 20 percent or
more of a respondent’s sales of a given
product during the POR were at prices
less than the COP for at least six months
of the POR, we determined that sales of
that model were made in ‘‘substantial
quantities’’ within an extended period
of time, in accordance with sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Where
prices of a respondent’s sales of a given
product were below the per–unit COP at
the time of sale and below the
weighted–average per–unit costs for the
POR, we determined that sales were not
at prices which would permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period
of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In such cases,
we disregarded the below–cost sales in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the
Act, where less than 20 percent of a
respondent’s sales of a given product
were at prices less than the COP, we did
not disregard any below–cost sales of
that product because we determined
that the below–cost sales were not made
in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’
We tested and identified below–cost
home market sales for Essar. We
disregarded individual below–cost sales
of a given product and used the
remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See
Calculation Memorandum for Essar.
Arm’s–Length Sales
Essar reported that it made sales of
the foreign like product in the home
market to affiliated parties. The
Department calculates NV based on a
sale to an affiliated party only if it is
satisfied that the price to the affiliated
party is comparable to the price at
which sales are made to parties not
affiliated with the producer or exporter,
i.e., sales at arm’s length. See 19 CFR
351.403(c).
To test whether these sales were made
at arm’s length, we compared the
starting prices of sales to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers net of all
movement charges, direct selling
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77621
expenses, discounts and packing. In
accordance with the Department’s
current practice, if the prices charged to
an affiliated party were, on average,
between 98 and 102 percent of the
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for
merchandise identical or most similar to
that sold to the affiliated party, we
considered the sales to be at arm’s–
length prices. See Notice of Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Ninth Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020
(August 8, 2006), and unchanged in the
final results; see also Notice of Final
Results of the Ninth Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011
(February 14, 2007); and 19 CFR
351.403(c). Conversely, where we found
sales to the affiliated party that did not
pass the arm’s–length test, all sales to
that affiliated party have been excluded
from the NV calculation. See
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated
Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of
Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November
15, 2002).
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary
results, we made currency conversions
in accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Act, based on the official exchange
rates published by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily find that the following
weighted–average dumping margin
exists:
Producer/Manufacturer
Essar .............................
Weighted–Average
Margin
2.10 %
The Department will disclose
calculations performed within five days
of the date of publication of this notice
to the parties of this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs
and/or written comments no later than
30 days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results of review. See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are
limited to issues raised in such briefs or
comments and may be filed no later
than five days after the time limit for
filing the case briefs or comments. See
19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting
arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief
summary of the argument, and 3) a table
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
77622
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices
of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)
and (d)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs and
comments must be served on interested
parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f). Further, parties submitting
written comments are requested to
provide the Department with an
additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on a diskette.
An interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). A hearing, if requested,
ordinarily will be held two days after
the due date of the rebuttal briefs. The
Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, which
will include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in the written comments,
or at a hearing, if requested, within 120
days of publication of these preliminary
results.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the publication of the final results
of this review. For assessment purposes,
where possible, we calculated importer–
specific assessment rates for certain
hot–rolled carbon steel flat products
from India via ad valorem duty
assessment rates based on the ratio of
the total amount of the dumping
margins calculated for the examined
sales to the total entered value of those
same sales. We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review if any assessment rate calculated
in the final results of this review is
above de minimis. The final results of
this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the
final results of these reviews and for
future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment
Policy Notice’’). This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the POR produced by companies
included in these final results of review
for which the reviewed companies did
not know that the merchandise they
sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:29 Dec 18, 2008
Jkt 217001
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
the producer and/or exporter included
in this administrative review, we
divided the total dumping margins for
each company by the total net value for
that company’s sales during the review
period.
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of hot–rolled carbon steel
from India entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The
cash deposit rates for the companies
listed above will be the rates established
in the final results of this review, except
if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and,
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit
will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed
above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate published for the most recent final
results in which that manufacturer or
exporter participated; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in these reviews,
a prior review, or the original less–thanfair–value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the
most recent final results for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or
any previous review or the LTFV
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 38.72 percent, the
all–others rate established in the LTFV.
See Amended Final Determination.
These cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: December 10, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E8–30268 Filed 12–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
National Conference on Weights and
Measures 94th Interim Meeting
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Interim Meeting of the
94th National Conference on Weights
and Measures (NCWM) will be held
January 11 to 14, 2009. Publication of
this notice on the NCWM’s behalf is
undertaken as a public service; NIST
does not endorse, approve, or
recommend any of the proposals
contained in this notice or in the
publications of the NCWM mentioned
below. The meetings are open to the
public but registration is required.
Registration information is stated in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section below.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
January 11–14, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Hilton Daytona Beach Oceanfront
Resort, 100 North Atlantic Avenue,
Daytona Beach, Florida 32118.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST, Weights and
Measures Division, 100 Bureau Drive,
Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–
2600 or by telephone (301) 975–5507 or
by e-mail at Carol.Hockert@nist.gov.
Please see the NCWM Publication 15,
which contains detailed meeting
agendas, registration forms and hotel
reservation information, at https://
www.ncwm.net or https://www.nist.gov/
owm on the Internet.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
NCWM is an organization of weights
and measures officials of the states,
counties, and cities of the United States,
federal agencies, and private sector
representatives. These meetings bring
together government officials and
representatives of business, industry,
trade associations, and consumer
organizations on subjects related to the
field of weights and measures
technology, administration and
enforcement. NIST participates to
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 245 (Friday, December 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77618-77622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30268]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-533-820)
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners,\1\ the Department of
Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
from India (``Indian Hot-Rolled''). This review covers one manufacturer
and exporter of the subject merchandise: Essar Steel Limited
(``Essar''). The Department has preliminarily determined that during
the period of review (``POR''), Essar 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\ The petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation
Steel and Nucor Corporation (collectively ``petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang or James Terpstra, 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-
1168 and (202) 482-3965, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot-Rolled. See Notice of
Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) (``Amended Final
Determination''). On December 3, 2007, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot-Rolled. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR
69889 (December 3, 2007). On December 31, 2007, petitioners requested
an administrative review in the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot-
Rolled, which were produced or exported by Ispat Industries Limited
(``Ispat''), JSW Steel Limited (``JSW''), Tata Steel Limited
(``Tata''), and Essar. On January 28, 2008, the Department published a
notice of initiation of antidumping duty administrative review of
Indian Hot-Rolled for the period December 1, 2006, through November 30,
2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 4829
(January 28, 2008) (``Initiation Notice''). On February 25, 2008, the
Department issued a memorandum informing the interested parties of the
Department's intention to limit the number of companies it would
examine in this review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the ``Act'').\2\ On February 26-27, 2008, Ispat,
Tata, and JSW each informed the Department that they did not have
shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR. On August 20,
[[Page 77619]]
2008, the Department published a notice extending the deadline for the
preliminary results from September 1, 2008, to October 31, 2008. In
this notice the Department also published its intent to rescind this
administrative review in part with respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata. See
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of
Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part and
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 73 FR 49169 (August 20, 2008)
(``Notice of Intent to Rescind and Prelim Extension'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum to File, Re: ``2006-2007 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India,'' Subject: ``Customs and Border Protection Data
for Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' from Cindy
Robinson, Senior Financial Analyst, through James Terpstra, Program
Manager, and Melissa Skinner, Office Director, Office 3, AD/CVD
Operations, dated February 25, 2008 (``Hot-Rolled Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 11, 2008, the Department issued an antidumping
questionnaire to Essar. The Department received responses to the
original questionnaire from Essar. The Department subsequently issued
supplemental questionnaires to Essar and received responses to the
same.
On September 2, 2008, the Department sent a letter to all
interested parties inviting comment on Draft Customs Instructions
related to the Department's intent to rescind the administrative review
with respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata. See Memorandum to File, Re:
``Draft Customs Instructions - Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India,'' dated September 2, 2008. The Department did not
receive comments from any interested party. On November 3, 2008, the
Department published a notice of rescission of this administrative
review in part with respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata. See Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Rescission, In
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 65291 (November
3, 2008).
On October 28, 2008, the Department again extended the time period
for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review from
October 31, 2008, to December 12, 2008. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
63945 (October 28, 2008).
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is December 1, 2006, through
November 30, 2007.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled carbon
steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or
greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed
layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a
thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10
times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150
mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4
mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not
less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order.
Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum-
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free
(``IF'')) steels, high-strength low-alloy (``HSLA'') steels, and the
substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-
carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium
or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper,
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination
steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and
aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight,
over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or
specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
Alloy hot-rolled carbon steel products in which at least
one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including,
e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'')
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)).
Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE'')/American Iron &
Steel Institute (``AISI'') grades of series 2300 and higher.
Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
United States Steel (``USS'') Abrasion-resistant steels
(USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of
the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel
covered by this order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized;
high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel
may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00,
7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00,
7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60,
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00,
7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter
under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00,
7212.40.50.00, and
[[Page 77620]]
7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description
of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
Indian Hot-Rolled produced by the respondent, covered by the scope of
the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign
like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product
comparisons to Indian Hot-Rolled sold in the United States.
Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on
the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V
physical characteristics reported by each respondent. Where sales were
made in the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S.
market (theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities
to the same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the
respondents, before making our fair-value comparisons.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of Indian Hot-Rolled by the respondents
to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export
price (``EP'') to the NV, as described in the ``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, where there
were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the
``Cost of Production (``COP'')'' section below. See the December 12,
2008, Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for Essar (Calculation
Memorandum for Essar); the public version of which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department building.
Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c) of this section.''
During the POR, Essar produced and sold subject merchandise to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation.
Therefore, we have applied the EP methodology.
We based EP on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for billing
adjustments. We also made deductions for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, we made
deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance,
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, U.S. brokerage
and handling, and U.S. customs duties. In addition, in accordance with
section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, when appropriate, we increased EP, by
an amount equal to the countervailing duty rate attributed to export
subsidies in the most recently completed administrative review of the
countervailing duty order applicable to the POR for Essar.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold by each respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to
permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to
the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the
price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption
in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade.
Where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the
Act, we deducted from the starting price inland freight (offset, where
applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and packing.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c), we deducted rebates and discounts. We
also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank charges and
commissions. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we
based NV on sales at the same level of trade as the EP. See the ``Level
of Trade'' section below.
For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines
``foreign like product'' as merchandise which is either (1) identical
or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When there
are no identical products sold in the home market, the products which
are most similar to the product sold in the United States are
identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are
identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an
adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the
actual physical differences between the products sold in the United
States and the home market. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.411.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(``LOT'') as the EP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were
no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market
sales at a different LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether EP sales and NV
sales were at different LOTs, we examine stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the customers. If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales
at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we will
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Essar reported different channels of distribution in the home
market; however, based on our analysis of the selling functions
performed for each channel, we found one level of trade for Essar. In
the U.S. market, Essar reported one channel of distribution and one LOT
for EP sales. We evaluated the core selling function categories in the
U.S. and home market LOTs and found that each of the core selling
functions (i.e., sales promotion, order processing, and warranty and
technical support) were performed in both the U.S. and home markets.
Although there are differences in the type of sales and marketing
services provided for each market, we did not find this to be a
material selling function distinction significant enough to warrant a
separate LOT. Therefore, after analyzing the selling functions
performed in each market, we find that the distinctions in selling
functions are not material and thus, that the home market and U.S. LOTs
are the same.
[[Page 77621]]
Accordingly, there is no basis for making a LOT under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(e). For a detailed
description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific
LOT findings for these preliminary results, see Calculation Memorandum
for Essar.
Cost of Production (``COP'')
A. Calculation of COP
In the most recently completed administrative review in which Essar
participated, the Department determined that Essar sold foreign like
product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and
excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 74267 (December 3, 2007)
unchanged in the final results, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 31961 (June 5, 2008). As a result, the
Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that during the instant POR, Essar sold foreign like product at
prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. See section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the Department initiated a
sales-below-cost inquiry with respect to Essar.
We calculated a company-specific COP for Essar based on the sum of
Essar's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for home-market selling expenses, selling, general and
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and packing costs in accordance
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We adjusted Essar's reported costs
to reflect the actual cost of iron ore pellets obtained from its
Hygrade Pellets division, but have denied the claimed offset to the
reported costs for profits allegedly earned by its Steelco Gujarat
division on services provided during the cost reporting period.
B. Test of Home-Market Prices
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B)
of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to home market sales
of the foreign like product and examined whether (1) within an extended
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2)
such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis,
we compared the COP to the home market prices (not including Value
Added Tax), less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and
rebates.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we may disregard below-
COP sales in the determination of NV if these sales have been made
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and were
not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP for at
least six months of the POR, we determined that sales of that model
were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of
time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act.
Where prices of a respondent's sales of a given product were below the
per-unit COP at the time of sale and below the weighted-average per-
unit costs for the POR, we determined that sales were not at prices
which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of
time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In such
cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.''
We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for Essar. We
disregarded individual below-cost sales of a given product and used the
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Calculation Memorandum for Essar.
Arm's-Length Sales
Essar reported that it made sales of the foreign like product in
the home market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV
based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the
price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales
are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e.,
sales at arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared
the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers
net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and
packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the
prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and
102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for
merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated
party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices. See Notice
of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020 (August 8,
2006), and unchanged in the final results; see also Notice of Final
Results of the Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007); and
19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we found sales to the affiliated
party that did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that
affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. See
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course
of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002).
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essar............................................... 2.10 [percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19
CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after
the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2)
a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table
[[Page 77622]]
of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). Case and rebuttal
briefs and comments must be served on interested parties in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Further, parties submitting written comments
are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the
public version of any such comments on a diskette.
An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). A
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due
date of the rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review, which will include the results
of its analysis of issues raised in the written comments, or at a
hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to
CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of this review.
For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products from India via ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the
ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de minimis. The final results of this
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews
and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003)
(``Assessment Policy Notice''). This clarification will apply to
entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies
included in these final results of review for which the reviewed
companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for 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 the producer and/or exporter
included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping
margins for each company by the total net value for that company's
sales during the review period.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
hot-rolled carbon steel from India entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates
for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5
percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2)
for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer
or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in
these reviews, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value
(``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for
the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review
or the LTFV conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be
38.72 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV. See Amended
Final Determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 10, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. E8-30268 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
