Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 79050-79055 [E8-30690]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79050-79055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-580-810)


Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from the Republic of Korea: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded 
stainless steel pipes (WSSP) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the 
period of review (POR) December 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007. The 
review covers one respondent, SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH).
    The Department preliminarily determines that SeAH made sales to the 
United States 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 entries of SeAH's merchandise during the POR. The 
preliminary results are listed below in the section titled 
``Preliminary Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Douglas 
Kirby, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-5255 or (202) 482-3782, respectively.

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on WSSP from 
Korea on December 30, 1992. See Antidumping Duty Order and 
Clarification of Final Determination: Certain Welded Stainless Steel 
Pipes From Korea, 57 FR 62301 (December 30, 1992).\1\ On December 3, 
2007, the Department published an ``Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on WSSP from 
Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity

[[Page 79051]]

To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 67889 (December 3, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The final determination was subsequently amended. See Notice 
of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 
Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 60 FR 10064 
(February 23, 1995) (Amended Final Determination and Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 28, 2008, the Department received a request for review 
of SeAH from Bristol Metals LLC, an interested party and one of the 
original petitioners. On January 28, 2008, the Department published, in 
the Federal Register, the notice of initiation of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on WSSP from Korea for SeAH. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 
2008).
    On February 29, 2008, the Department issued sections A through E of 
the questionnaire to SeAH. SeAH timely submitted its section A response 
on April 4, 2008, and its sections B through D responses on April 22, 
2008. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires on May 22, 
2008; August 7, 2008; October 6, 2008; and November 10, 2008 and SeAH 
responded on June 18, 2008; September 4, 2008; October 21, 2008; and 
November 25, 2008, respectively.
    On August 19, 2008, the Department, in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 
CFR 351.213(h)(2), extended the deadline for the preliminary results of 
this antidumping duty administrative review by 107 days from September 
1, 2008 until no later than December 17, 2008. See Welded ASTM A-312 
Stainless Steel Pipe from South Korea: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
48374 (August 19, 2008).

Period of Review

    This review covers the period December 1, 2006 through November 30, 
2007.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is welded 
austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets the standards and 
specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated 
ASTM A-312. The merchandise covered by the scope of the order also 
includes austenitic welded stainless steel pipes made according to the 
standards of other nations which are comparable to ASTM A-312.
    WSSP is produced by forming stainless steel flat-rolled products 
into a tubular configuration and welding along the seam. WSSP is a 
commodity product generally used as a conduit to transmit liquids or 
gases. Major applications for steel pipe include, but are not limited 
to, digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical 
stock lines, brewery process and transport lines, general food 
processing lines, automotive paint lines, and paper process machines. 
Imports of WSSP are currently classifiable under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 
7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065, and 
7306.40.5085. Although these subheadings include both pipes and tubes, 
the scope of the antidumping duty order is limited to welded austenitic 
stainless steel pipes. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes. However, the written description of 
the scope of the order is dispositive.

Less Than Normal Value Analysis

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared the constructed export 
price (CEP) to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, below, in accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent that are covered by the description 
in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, and that were sold in the 
home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In 
accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to 
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire. We preliminarily determine that 
product codes reported by SeAH do not result in comparisons of the most 
similar products. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have 
recoded one of the product characteristics to yield more appropriate 
product comparisons of the most similar products between the home 
market and the U.S. market. For a more detailed discussion, see 
Analysis Memorandum for SeAH Steel Corporation: Preliminary Results of 
Administrative Review (SeAH Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), dated 
concurrently with this notice, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit of the main Department of Commerce building, Room 1117.

Date of Sale

    The Department's regulations state that ``{i{time} n identifying 
the date of sale for the subject merchandise or foreign like product, 
the Secretary will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business. 
However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if 
the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the 
date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms 
of the sale.'' See 19 CFR 351.401(i). We examined the questionnaire 
responses and the sales documentation placed on the record by SeAH and 
determined that for the home market, invoice date is the appropriate 
basis for date of sale. We note that SeAH reported that it issues the 
invoice on shipment date, so these two dates are the same.
    In the U.S. market, SeAH reported as date of sale the earlier of 
shipment or invoice date. According to SeAH, its U.S. subsidiary, Pusan 
Pipe America (PPA), prepares the commercial invoice after SeAH advises 
PPA that the merchandise is ready for shipment from SeAH to the 
customer. We preliminarily determine that shipment date may precede 
invoice date based upon the way in which SeAH described the sales 
process. Therefore, for U.S. sales, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, whenever shipment date precedes invoice date, we used 
shipment date as date of sale. See e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
18074, 18079-18080 (April 10, 2006), unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea; Final Results and 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 
4486 (January 31, 2007); and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
from Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 72 FR 
62630 (November 6, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Issue 2 (``it is appropriate to use the earlier of 
shipment or invoice date as Colakolgu's and Habas' U.S. date of sale in 
the instant review, consistent with the date-of-sale methodology 
established in the previous review'').

U.S. Price

    Pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, for sales to the United 
States, we preliminarily determine that all of

[[Page 79052]]

SeAH's U.S. sales are CEP sales because all sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States were made by PPA, SeAH's U.S. sales 
subsidiary, to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. We based 
CEP on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in 
the United States and the applicable terms of sale. See SeAH's April 4, 
2008 section A response.
    The Department calculated PPA's starting price as its gross unit 
price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, making adjustments, where 
necessary, for billing adjustments, pursuant to section 772(c)(1) of 
the Act. Where applicable, the Department made deductions for movement 
expenses (foreign inland freight, foreign inland brokerage, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. harbor maintenance charges and 
merchandise processing fees) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.401(e). In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) 
and (2) of the Act, we also deducted, where applicable, U.S. direct 
selling expenses, including warranty and credit expenses, indirect 
selling expenses, and inventory carrying costs incurred in the United 
States and in Korea, where such costs were associated with economic 
activities in the United States. We also deducted CEP profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 
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, 
in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent practicable, at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP sale. See ``Level of Trade/
Constructed Export Price Offset'' section, below. After testing home 
market viability and whether home market sales were at below-cost 
prices, we calculated NV for SeAH as discussed in the following 
sections.

Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared SeAH's volume 
of home market sales of foreign like product to the volume of U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because the volume of SeAH's home market sales 
of foreign like product was greater than five percent of the volume of 
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determine that the home 
market is viable. Therefore, we used home market sales as the basis for 
NV in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.

Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    In the most recently completed administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on WSSP from Korea, the Department determined 
that SeAH sold foreign-like product in its home market at prices below 
the cost of producing the product and excluded such sales from the 
calculation of NV. See Certain Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe 
from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 72645, 72647 (December 28, 1999), unchanged in Certain 
Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30071 
(May 10, 2000). Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 
of the Act, the Department determined that there are reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that, during the current POR, SeAH sold the 
foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the product 
and instituted a below cost inquiry regarding SeAH's sales in the home 
market.
    We calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for selling, 
general and administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, and home 
market packing costs, pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We 
relied on the COP data submitted by SeAH in its October 21, 2008 
supplemental section D response, except where noted. During the POR, 
SeAH purchased hot-rolled stainless steel coil from its Korean 
affiliate, POSCO. Hot-rolled stainless steel coil is considered a major 
input to the production of circular WSSP. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.407(b), we tested the affiliated transactions using all three 
elements of the major input rule (i.e., transfer price, COP, and market 
price), where available.
    For these preliminary results, we evaluated the transfer price 
between SeAH and its affiliated hot-rolled stainless steel coil 
supplier on a grade-specific basis. For one of the grades of hot-rolled 
stainless steel coil that SeAH purchased during the POR, all three 
elements of the major input analysis were available. This grade of hot-
rolled stainless steel coil accounted for the majority of volume of 
hot-rolled stainless steel coil that SeAH purchased from POSCO during 
the POR. As such, we find these purchases provide a reasonable basis 
for the Department to measure the preferential treatment, if any, given 
to SeAH for purchases of hot-rolled stainless steel coil during the 
POR. Therefore, we adjusted the reported costs to reflect the higher of 
transfer prices, COP, or market prices of hot-rolled stainless steel 
coil, where all three elements of the major input were available. See 
Memorandum from Gina Lee to Neal Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - SeAH Steel Corporation (COP 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.
    For the other grades of stainless steel hot-rolled coil for which 
market prices were not available, the Department has constructed market 
prices in order to perform the major input analysis, consistent with 
its practice. See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: 
Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 5, and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 27802 (May 17, 2007) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. In the instant case we 
have applied the results of our analysis of the grade for which market 
prices were available to those grades for which market prices were not 
available. We also find this approach to be reasonable because the 
grade for which market prices are available constitutes the majority of 
hot-rolled stainless steel coil purchased by SeAH from its affiliate. 
As such, these purchases provide a reasonable basis to determine the 
amount usually reflected in the sales of the major input in the market 
under consideration.
    Furthermore, we analyzed the market prices and affiliated 
supplier's COP for hot-rolled stainless steel coil, and found that the 
prices and COPs changed significantly during the POR. Therefore, we 
have performed the major input analysis using quarterly COP and price 
averages. For a detailed discussion, see COP Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum.
    For the preliminary results, we relied on general and 
administrative and financial expense rates reported in SeAH's October 
21, 2008 supplemental section D response. See COP Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum.

[[Page 79053]]

Test Of Home Market Sales Prices

    To determine whether SeAH's home market sales had been made at 
prices below the COP, we computed weighted-average COPs during the POR, 
and compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales 
prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home 
market prices, net of billing adjustments, any applicable movement 
charges, selling expenses and packing expenses.

Results of COP Test

    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and whether such 
sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where 
less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given 
model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost 
sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales 
were not made within an extended period of time and in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market 
sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded 
the below-cost sales because: (1) they were made within an extended 
period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they 
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.

Home Market Price

    For those product comparisons for which there were home market 
sales of like product in the ordinary course of trade, we based NV on 
home market prices to unaffiliated parties, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. We 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. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home 
market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next 
most similar foreign like product. See section 771(16) of the Act. We 
preliminarily determine that the product codes that SeAH reported for 
the model matching criteria do not result in comparisons of the most 
similar products. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we have 
recoded one of the product characteristics to yield more appropriate 
product comparisons of the most similar products in the home market and 
the U.S. market. See SeAH Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for a 
detailed description of the revisions made by the Department.
    When comparing SeAH's home market sales to its CEP sales, the 
Department calculated SeAH's NV based on its gross unit price to 
customers in its home market. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of 
the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses (i.e., inland 
freight), when appropriate. In accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we deducted home 
market direct selling expenses (i.e., credit and warranty expenses). In 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we deducted 
home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    We used constructed value (CV) as the basis for NV for sales for 
which there were no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like 
product in the home market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 
Act. We relied on the COP data submitted by SeAH in its October 21, 
2008 supplemental section D response, except where noted. In accordance 
with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of 
SeAH's material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit and 
packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above 
in the ``Cost of Production (COP) Analysis'' section above. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses 
and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the home market.

Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determined NV based on sales made in the comparison 
market at the same LOT as the CEP sales. The NV LOT is based on the 
starting price of the sales in the comparison market. In Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. U.S., 243 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Micron 
Tech.), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the 
statute unambiguously requires the Department to remove the selling 
activities set forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the CEP starting 
price prior to performing its LOT analysis. As such, for CEP sales, the 
U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales, as adjusted under 
section 772(d) of the Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at different 
LOTs, and the difference in LOTs affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences, we make an LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the 
NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there 
is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels 
between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under 
section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 
(November 19, 1997).
    Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different 
marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 
Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not 
sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the 
stages of marketing. Id. In order to determine whether the comparison 
sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. 
sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the 
channel of distribution),\2\ including selling functions,\3\ class of 
customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for 
each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The marketing process in the United States and in the 
comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale 
to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the 
two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs.
    \3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the LOTs in a particular market. 
For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the 
common selling functions into four major categories: sales process 
and marketing support, technical service, freight and delivery, and 
inventory maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for CEP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices), we consider the starting prices

[[Page 79054]]

before any adjustments. Consistent with Micron Tech., 243 F.3d at 1315, 
the Department will adjust the U.S. LOT, pursuant to section 772(d) of 
the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as articulated by 19 CFR 
351.412.
    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the 
CEP sales, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing CEP sales to sales 
at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make 
it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act.
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information 
from SeAH regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and home 
market sales, including a description of the selling activities 
performed for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported 
LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller at each 
level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs are 
different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and 
activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar.
    In the current review, SeAH reported two channels of distribution 
in the home market. Sales in the home market were mostly made directly 
from SeAH to unrelated end-users and distributors. The information 
provided by SeaH in its April 4, 2008 section A response and in its 
June 18, 2008 supplemental section A response shows that the selling 
functions performed by SeAH in both home market channels of 
distribution were identical. As such, we preliminarily find that all of 
SeAH's sales in the home market were made at one LOT.
    SeAH reported one channel of distribution for its sales made 
through PPA, its affiliated reseller in the United States. Therefore, 
we preliminarily find that SeAH made its U.S. sales at one LOT. SeAH 
claimed that once adjustments for PPA's activities for U.S. sales are 
made, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, the LOT in the U.S. market 
is less advanced than the home market LOT.
    To determine whether NV is at a different LOT than the U.S. 
transactions, the Department compared SeAH's selling activities for the 
home market with those for the U.S. market. See SeAH's April 4, 2008 
section A response at Exhibit A-16 and SeAH's June 18, 2008 section A 
response at Exhibit A-35. In accordance with Micron Tech., we removed 
the selling activities set forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the 
U.S. LOT prior to performing the LOT analysis. See SeAH's Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum. After removing the appropriate selling activities, 
we compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT. Based on our analysis, 
we preliminarily find that the U.S. sales are at a less advanced LOT 
than the home market sales. The Department's complete analysis relies 
on SeAH's business proprietary information and is provided in SeAH's 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at Attachment III.
    Therefore, because the sales in the home market are being made at a 
more advanced LOT than the sales to the United States, an LOT 
adjustment is appropriate for the home market sales in this review. 
However, as SeAH sold only through one LOT in the home market, there is 
not sufficient data to evaluate whether an LOT adjustment is warranted. 
Therefore, we made a CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). This offset is equal to the amount of 
indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs incurred in the 
comparison market up to but not exceeding the sum of indirect selling 
expenses and inventory carrying costs from the U.S. price in accordance 
with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    In accordance with section 773A of the Act, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. See https://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/. See also 19 CFR 351.415.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel Corporation......................................        4.10
                                                                [percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposits

    The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to 
all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption, on or after the publication date of the 
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for 
SeAH, the cash deposit rate 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 be the company-
specific rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the less than fair value 
(LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer of the subject merchandise is a firm 
covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters, which is 7.00 percent as established in the 
Amended Final Determination and Order. These deposit rates, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Duty Assessment

    Upon publication of the final results of this review, the 
Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the 
Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the 
subject merchandise for each respondent. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on 
the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties 
calculated for the examined sales and the total entered value of the 
examined sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries 
of the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of review. The Department 
intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 
days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification applies to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in the final 
results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that 
the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading 
company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such 
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 
all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in 
the transaction. See Assessment Policy

[[Page 79055]]

Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any 
party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of public 
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary 
results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be 
submitted within 30 days after the date of the publication of this 
notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in the case 
briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties 
who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with 
the argument: 1) a statement of the issues; 2) a brief summary of the 
argument; and 3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 309(c)(2). Case and 
rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.303(f).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration 
within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain: 1) the party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the 
number of participants; and 3) a list of issues to be raised. Issues 
raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective 
case briefs. Unless the Department specifies otherwise, the hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of 
rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). Parties will be notified of 
the time and location of the hearing, if scheduled.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review within 120 days after the publication of this notice, unless 
extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Notification of Importers

    This notice also 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.
    The preliminary results of this administrative review and this 
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 17, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-30690 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S