Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77614-77618 [E8-30272]

Download as PDF 77614 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices represent a majority of the industry producing the domestic like product, but rather it merely requires a majority of the association’s members to manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States. Further, 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) does not require that a domestic interested party represent the majority of the domestic industry before it may request a review. In this case, both the administrative review requests and the corresponding withdrawal of certain of these requests were made on behalf of the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, not the individual members of this group. Consequently, because the U.S. producers involved in the November 3, 2008, filing did not request any administrative reviews in this segment of the proceeding, we find that their objection to the petitioner’s withdrawal of its request for administrative reviews of certain Thai producers/exporters does not provide a basis for the Department to maintain the review request for these companies. Assessment The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this partial rescission of administrative review. The Department will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for POR entries of the subject merchandise produced/exported by the companies for which we are rescinding the review based on the timely withdrawal of review requests. With respect to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no–shipments, because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination, we will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the all–others rate established in the less–than-fair–value investigation if there is no rate for the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) involved in the transaction. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:29 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 217001 this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: December 15, 2008. Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. E8–30277 Filed 12–18–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–580–836 Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut–to-length carbon–quality steel plate products from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. The Department has preliminarily determined that DSM made U.S. sales at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review. We intend to issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the publication date of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Johnson or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–5287 and (202) 482–1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Background On February 10, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain cut– to-length carbon–quality steel plate products (steel plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut– To-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 (February 10, 2000). On February 4, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on February 29, 2008, DSM requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United State during the POR. Additionally, on February 29, 2008, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), domestic producers and interested parties, Nucor Corporation (Nucor) and ArcelorMittal Steel USA Inc. (ArcelorMittal), requested that the Department conduct a review of DSM. On March 31, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative review of DSM. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review, 73 FR 16837 (March 31, 2008). On October 15, 2008, we extended the due date for the preliminary results of review by 45 days to December 15, 2008. See Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 62477 (October 21, 2008). The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot– rolled carbon–quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (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 nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut–tolength (not in coils) and without E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices patterns in relief), of iron or non–alloyquality steel; and (2) flat–rolled products, hot–rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut–to-length (not in coils). Steel products included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and of rectangular or non–rectangular cross– section where such non–rectangular cross–section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’) - for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated with plastic or other non–metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro–alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 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 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non–metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion–resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:29 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 217001 S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive. Fair–Value Comparison To determine whether DSM’s sales of the subject merchandise from Korea to the United States were at prices below normal value, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value as described in the ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted–average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the ‘‘scope of the order’’ section above produced and sold by DSM in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical comparison–market model was reported, we made comparisons to weighted–average comparison–market prices that were based on all sales which passed the cost–of-production (COP) test of the identical product during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted– average comparison–market prices on a level of trade–specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar comparison–market model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 77615 by the respondent in the following order of importance: quality, specification, heat treatments, thickness, and width. Constructed Export Price The Department based the price of DSM’s U.S. sales of subject merchandise on CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, before importation, by a U.S.-based seller affiliated with the producer to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes direct selling expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and comparison markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets. Normal Value A. Affiliation DSM made home–market sales to a wholly owned subsidiary of Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (DKI). The Department has found DKI to be an affiliated party of DSM in prior reviews and has treated sales to DKI’s wholly owned subsidiary as affiliated–party sales. See Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 67428, 67429 (November 7, 2005) (2004/05 Prelim), unchanged in Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 13080 (March 14, 2006) (2004/05 Final). See also Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon– Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 65701, 65703 (November, 2007) (2006/ 07 Prelim), unchanged in Certain Cut– to-Length Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results and Rescission in Part of E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 77616 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 15132 (March 21, 2008) (2006/07 Final). Section 771(33)(F) of the Act states that two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with any person shall be considered affiliates. Accordingly, we have determined in this review that DSM and DKI are under common control of a family grouping and, thus, are affiliated. Our decision is supported by the evidence on the record of this review which indicates that the same familial relationships that formed the basis of our determination in 2004/ 05 Final1 and 2006/07 Final2 continue today. Further, although DSM identified DKI as an unaffiliated entity in its original questionnaire response, DSM confirmed in its supplemental response that there have not been any changes in the ownership or control of DSM and DKI during the POR that would affect the Department’s 2007–2008 analysis of affiliation between the two companies. See DSM’s Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated September 9, 2008, at 6. The detailed analysis of this issue contains business–proprietary information and, therefore, is available in a decision memorandum. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill concerning Affiliation Analysis for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., dated December 12, 2008. For the reasons stated above and outlined in the decision memorandum, the Department preliminarily continues to find that DSM and DKI are affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act. B. Home–Market Viability In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of steel plate in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of the respondent’s home–market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. DSM’s quantity of sales in the home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities sold in the comparison market (i.e., Korea) and to the United States and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a 1 See Memorandum to Holly Kuga from Malcolm Burke concerning the affiliation analysis for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., dated October 31, 2005. 2 See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., dated November 15, 2007, at 2. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:29 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 217001 proper comparison, we preliminarily determine that the quantity of the foreign like product sold by the 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)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determine that DSM’s home market was viable during the POR. Id. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. C. Overrun Sales Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that normal value shall be based on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold, inter alia, in the ordinary course of trade. Section 771(15) of the Act defines ‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ as the ‘‘conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to the exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration with respect to merchandise of the same class or kind.’’ DSM reported home–market sales of ‘‘overrun’’ merchandise (i.e., sales of a greater quantity of steel plate than the customer ordered due to overproduction). In the past, the Department has examined various factors to determine whether ‘‘overrun’’ sales are in the ordinary course of trade. See China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d. 1339, 1364 (CIT May 14, 2003). See also 2004/05 Prelim, 70 FR 67428, 67430, unchanged in 2004/05 Final, 71 FR 13080. The Department has the discretion to choose how best to analyze the many factors involved in determining whether sales are made within the ordinary course of trade. See Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 19 CIT 1076, 1078 (CIT August 11, 1995). These factors include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) whether the merchandise is ‘‘off–quality’’ or produced according to unusual specifications; (2) the comparative volume of sales and the number of buyers in the home market; (3) the average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the average quantity of a commercial sale; and (4) price and profit differentials in the home market. Based on our analysis of these factors and the terms of sale, we preliminarily determine that DSM’s overrun sales are outside the ordinary course of trade. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Because our analysis makes use of business–proprietary information, the analysis is available in a separate decision memorandum. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill concerning Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade, dated December 12, 2008. D. Cost–of-Production Analysis In the most recently completed administrative review, the Department determined that DSM sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and, as a result, excluded such sales from the calculation of normal value. See 2006/ 07 Prelim, 72 FR at 65704, unchanged in 2006/07 Final, 73 FR 15132. Therefore, in this review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that DSM’s sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value may have been made at prices below COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of DSM’s sales in the comparison market. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and labor employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the comparison– market sales and COP information provided by DSM in its questionnaire response. After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether comparison– market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model–specific COPs to the reported comparison–market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of DSM’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 the below–cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of DSM’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below–cost sales because they were made in substantial E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 77617 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 245 / Friday, December 19, 2008 / Notices quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weightedaverage COPs for the POR, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we disregarded below–cost sales. E. Arm’s–Length Test The Department may calculate normal value 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 exporter or producer, i.e., sales at arm’s–length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). For affiliated–party sales, we excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the comparison market that we determined not to have been made at arm’s–length prices. To test whether these sales were made at arm’s–length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm’s–length prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) (explaining the Department’s practice). We included in our calculations of normal value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm’s–length prices. F. Price–to-Price Comparisons We based normal value on comparison–market sales to unaffiliated purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm’s–length test. DSM’s comparison–market prices were based on the packed, ex–factory, or delivered prices. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:29 Dec 18, 2008 Jkt 217001 accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance–of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison–market direct selling expenses from normal value. Level of Trade To the extent practicable, we determine normal value for sales at the same level of trade as CEP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. When there are no sales at the same level of trade, we compare CEP sales to comparison–market sales at a different level of trade. The normal– value level of trade is that of the starting–price sales in the comparison market. To determine whether comparison– market sales are at a different level of trade than DSM’s U.S. sales in this review, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Based on our analysis, we have preliminarily determined that there is one level of trade in the United States and one level of trade in the home market and that the U.S. level of trade is at a less advanced stage than the home–market level of trade. Therefore, we have compared U.S. sales to home– market sales at different levels of trade. Because there is only one level of trade in the home market, we were unable to calculate a level–of-trade adjustment based on DSM’s home– market sales of the foreign like product and we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level–of-trade adjustment. For DSM’s CEP sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP–offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP–offset adjustment to normal value is subject to the so–called offset cap, which is calculated as the sum of home– market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP. For a detailed description of our level–of-trade analysis for DSM in these preliminary results, see Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for Dongkuk Steel Mill Company, Ltd., dated December 12, 2008. Currency Conversion Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted–average dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. ....... 9.27 Disclosure and Public Comment We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an importer–specific assessment rate for these preliminary results of review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for the importer. We will instruct CBP to assess the importer– specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue instructions E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 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

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 245 (Friday, December 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77614-77618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-580-836


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From 
the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality 
steel plate products from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review 
covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Dongkuk Steel 
Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2007, 
through January 31, 2008.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that DSM made U.S. 
sales at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results of review. We intend to issue the 
final results of review no later than 120 days from the publication 
date of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Johnson or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
5287 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 10, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-
quality steel plate products (steel plate) from the Republic of Korea 
(Korea). See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-To-Length 
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India, Indonesia, 
Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 (February 10, 2000). 
On February 4, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 
73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on February 29, 2008, DSM 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its 
sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United State during 
the POR. Additionally, on February 29, 2008, and in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(b)(1), domestic producers and interested parties, Nucor 
Corporation (Nucor) and ArcelorMittal Steel USA Inc. (ArcelorMittal), 
requested that the Department conduct a review of DSM. On March 31, 
2008, the Department initiated an administrative review of DSM. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 16837 (March 31, 2008). On October 15, 2008, we extended 
the due date for the preliminary results of review by 45 days to 
December 15, 2008. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
Products From the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
62477 (October 21, 2008).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-
rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (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 nominal or 
actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in 
coils) and without

[[Page 77615]]

patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-
rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 
mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least 
twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel 
products included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, 
circular, or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-
section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent 
to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ``worked after 
rolling'') - for example, products which have been beveled or rounded 
at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical 
characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated with plastic or 
other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, 
specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low 
alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-
alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, 
titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in this 
scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by 
weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon 
content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements 
listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, 
respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 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 0.41 percent of 
titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All 
products that meet the written physical description, and in which the 
chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels 
listed above, are within the scope of the order unless otherwise 
specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded 
from the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, 
whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-
metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 
2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their 
proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 
400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, 
A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing 
steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon 
electric steel.
    Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under 
subheadings 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 
7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 
7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 
7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 
and 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise 
covered by the order is dispositive.

Fair-Value Comparison

    To determine whether DSM's sales of the subject merchandise from 
Korea to the United States were at prices below normal value, we 
compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value as 
described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of 
the Act, we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to the 
monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where 
there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the ``scope of the order'' section above produced 
and sold by DSM in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign 
like product for the purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically, in 
making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an 
identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to 
weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales 
which passed the cost-of-production (COP) test of the identical product 
during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-
average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If 
there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we 
identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the 
most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the 
physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following 
order of importance: quality, specification, heat treatments, 
thickness, and width.

Constructed Export Price

    The Department based the price of DSM's U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise on CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because 
the merchandise was sold, before importation, by a U.S.-based seller 
affiliated with the producer to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act we calculated 
the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, which includes direct 
selling expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 
also deducted those indirect selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States and the profit allocated to 
expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of 
the Act, we computed profit based on the total revenues realized on 
sales in both the U.S. and comparison markets, less all expenses 
associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses 
incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of 
total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison 
markets.

Normal Value

A. Affiliation

    DSM made home-market sales to a wholly owned subsidiary of Dongkuk 
Industries Co., Ltd. (DKI). The Department has found DKI to be an 
affiliated party of DSM in prior reviews and has treated sales to DKI's 
wholly owned subsidiary as affiliated-party sales. See Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: 
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 67428, 67429 (November 7, 2005) (2004/05 
Prelim), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 13080 (March 14, 2006) (2004/05 Final). 
See also Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From 
the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 65701, 65703 (November, 
2007) (2006/07 Prelim), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-
Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results 
and Rescission in Part of

[[Page 77616]]

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 15132 (March 21, 2008) 
(2006/07 Final).
    Section 771(33)(F) of the Act states that two or more persons 
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common 
control with any person shall be considered affiliates. Accordingly, we 
have determined in this review that DSM and DKI are under common 
control of a family grouping and, thus, are affiliated. Our decision is 
supported by the evidence on the record of this review which indicates 
that the same familial relationships that formed the basis of our 
determination in 2004/05 Final\1\ and 2006/07 Final\2\ continue today. 
Further, although DSM identified DKI as an unaffiliated entity in its 
original questionnaire response, DSM confirmed in its supplemental 
response that there have not been any changes in the ownership or 
control of DSM and DKI during the POR that would affect the 
Department's 2007-2008 analysis of affiliation between the two 
companies. See DSM's Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated 
September 9, 2008, at 6. The detailed analysis of this issue contains 
business-proprietary information and, therefore, is available in a 
decision memorandum. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill concerning 
Affiliation Analysis for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., dated December 
12, 2008. For the reasons stated above and outlined in the decision 
memorandum, the Department preliminarily continues to find that DSM and 
DKI are affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum to Holly Kuga from Malcolm Burke concerning 
the affiliation analysis for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., dated 
October 31, 2005.
    \2\ See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for Dongkuk Steel Mill 
Co., Ltd., dated November 15, 2007, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Home-Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of steel plate 
in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the 
normal value, we compared the volume of the respondent's home-market 
sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise. DSM's quantity of sales in the home market was 
greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on 
this comparison of the aggregate quantities sold in the comparison 
market (i.e., Korea) and to the United States and absent any 
information that a particular market situation in the exporting country 
did not permit a proper comparison, we preliminarily determine that the 
quantity of the foreign like product sold by the 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)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determine that DSM's home market 
was viable during the POR. Id. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on 
the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for 
consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities 
and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at 
the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.

C. Overrun Sales

    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that normal value shall be 
based on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold, 
inter alia, in the ordinary course of trade. Section 771(15) of the Act 
defines ``ordinary course of trade'' as the ``conditions and practices 
which, for a reasonable time prior to the exportation of the subject 
merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration with 
respect to merchandise of the same class or kind.''
    DSM reported home-market sales of ``overrun'' merchandise (i.e., 
sales of a greater quantity of steel plate than the customer ordered 
due to overproduction). In the past, the Department has examined 
various factors to determine whether ``overrun'' sales are in the 
ordinary course of trade. See China Steel Corp. v. United States, 264 
F. Supp. 2d. 1339, 1364 (CIT May 14, 2003). See also 2004/05 Prelim, 70 
FR 67428, 67430, unchanged in 2004/05 Final, 71 FR 13080. The 
Department has the discretion to choose how best to analyze the many 
factors involved in determining whether sales are made within the 
ordinary course of trade. See Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 19 
CIT 1076, 1078 (CIT August 11, 1995). These factors include, but are 
not limited to, the following: (1) whether the merchandise is ``off-
quality'' or produced according to unusual specifications; (2) the 
comparative volume of sales and the number of buyers in the home 
market; (3) the average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the 
average quantity of a commercial sale; and (4) price and profit 
differentials in the home market.
    Based on our analysis of these factors and the terms of sale, we 
preliminarily determine that DSM's overrun sales are outside the 
ordinary course of trade. Because our analysis makes use of business-
proprietary information, the analysis is available in a separate 
decision memorandum. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill concerning 
Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of 
Trade, dated December 12, 2008.

D. Cost-of-Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed administrative review, the 
Department determined that DSM sold the foreign like product at prices 
below the cost of producing the merchandise and, as a result, excluded 
such sales from the calculation of normal value. See 2006/07 Prelim, 72 
FR at 65704, unchanged in 2006/07 Final, 73 FR 15132. Therefore, in 
this review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
DSM's sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the 
determination of normal value may have been made at prices below COP as 
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and, pursuant to 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of 
DSM's sales in the comparison market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and labor employed in 
producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental 
to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the 
comparison-market sales and COP information provided by DSM in its 
questionnaire response.
    After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act, we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 
773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported 
comparison-market prices less any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of DSM'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 
the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of DSM's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial

[[Page 77617]]

quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of 
prices to weighted- average COPs for the POR, we determined that these 
sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost 
sales.

E. Arm's-Length Test

    The Department may calculate normal value 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 exporter or producer, i.e., sales at 
arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). For affiliated-party sales, 
we excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated customers for 
consumption in the comparison market that we determined not to have 
been made at arm's-length prices. To test whether these sales were made 
at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of 
comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of 
all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when 
the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 
and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for 
merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we 
determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length 
prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the 
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) (explaining 
the Department's practice). We included in our calculations of normal 
value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length 
prices.

F. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We based normal value on comparison-market sales to unaffiliated 
purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-
length test. DSM's comparison-market prices were based on the packed, 
ex-factory, or delivered prices. When applicable, we made adjustments 
for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of 
sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from 
normal value.

Level of Trade

    To the extent practicable, we determine normal value for sales at 
the same level of trade as CEP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. When there are no sales at the same level 
of trade, we compare CEP sales to comparison-market sales at a 
different level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of 
the starting-price sales in the comparison market.
    To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different 
level of trade than DSM's U.S. sales in this review, we examined stages 
in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of 
distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Based 
on our analysis, we have preliminarily determined that there is one 
level of trade in the United States and one level of trade in the home 
market and that the U.S. level of trade is at a less advanced stage 
than the home-market level of trade. Therefore, we have compared U.S. 
sales to home-market sales at different levels of trade.
    Because there is only one level of trade in the home market, we 
were unable to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment based on DSM's 
home-market sales of the foreign like product and we have no other 
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-
of-trade adjustment. For DSM's CEP sales, to the extent possible, we 
determined normal value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to 
the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset 
adjustment to normal value is subject to the so-called offset cap, 
which is calculated as the sum of home-market indirect selling expenses 
up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP.
    For a detailed description of our level-of-trade analysis for DSM 
in these preliminary results, see Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for 
Dongkuk Steel Mill Company, Ltd., dated December 12, 2008.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, we converted amounts expressed in 
foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales, as certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period 
February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd.................................        9.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing is 
requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing 
schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed 
by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Interested parties may file 
rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The 
Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days 
after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the 
issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities 
cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments 
provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of 
the public version of such comments.
    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results 
in the Federal Register.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for 
these preliminary results of review. We divided the total dumping 
margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those 
reviewed sales for the importer. We will instruct CBP to assess the 
importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of 
subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR. See 
19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue instructions

[[Page 77618]]

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 Carbon-Quality 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 
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India and the Republic of Korea, 65 
FR 6587, 6588 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.