Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent To Reinstate Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited in the Antidumping Duty Order, 79809-79814 [E8-30993]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. Rebuttal briefs and
rebuttals to written comments, limited
to issues raised in the case briefs and
comments, may be filed no later than 35
days after the date of publication of this
notice. Parties who submit arguments in
these proceedings 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. Further, parties
submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs,
and written comments should provide
the Department with an additional copy
of the public version of any such
argument on diskette. The Department
will issue final results of this
administrative review, including the
results of our analysis of the issues in
any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and
written comments or at a hearing,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where
entered values were reported, we
calculated importer-specific ad valorem
assessment rates for the merchandise
based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales made during the POR to
the total customs value of the sales used
to calculate those duties. Where entered
values were not reported, we calculated
importer-specific per-unit assessment
rates for the merchandise based on the
ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales
made during the POR to the total
quantity of the sales used to calculate
those duties. These rates will be
assessed uniformly on all ACA,
Patagonik and Seylinco entries made
during the POR. For entries made
during the POR from the non-reviewed
company, i.e., CIPSA, we will assess
duties based on the weighted-average
dumping margin calculated for
Patagonik. The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions 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). This
clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the period
of review produced by companies
included in these final results of review
for which the reviewed companies did
not know their merchandise was
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:29 Dec 30, 2008
Jkt 217001
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of honey from Argentina entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this
administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash
deposit rates for all companies covered
by this review (i.e., ACA, Seylinco,
Patagonik, and CIPSA) will be the rates
established in the final results of review;
(2) for any previously-reviewed or
investigated company not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review or the less-than-fair-value
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be the all-others rate
from the investigation (30.24 percent).
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order;
Honey From Argentina, 66 FR 63672
(December 10, 2001). These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
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
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 19, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–30996 Filed 12–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79809
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–549–817]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Thailand: Preliminary
Results of Changed Circumstances
Review and Intent To Reinstate
Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public
Company Limited in the Antidumping
Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 17, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) revoked in part the
antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled carbon steel flat products (‘‘hotrolled steel’’) from Thailand with
respect to Sahaviriya Steel Industries
Public Company Limited (‘‘SSI’’) after
having determined that SSI sold the
merchandise at not less than normal
value (‘‘NV’’) for a period of at least
three consecutive years. See Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Partial Revocation of
Antidumping Duty Order and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 28659
(May 17, 2006) (‘‘Revocation’’). As the
result of an adequate allegation from a
domestic interested party in this
proceeding, the Department, pursuant to
section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), is now
conducting a changed circumstances
review to determine whether SSI has
resumed dumping hot-rolled steel and
whether the antidumping order should
be reinstated for hot-rolled steel from
Thailand manufactured and exported by
SSI. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Thailand, 73 FR 18766 (April 7,
2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). We
preliminarily determine that SSI has
sold hot-rolled steel at less than NV and
that hot-rolled steel produced and
exported by SSI should be reinstated in
the antidumping duty order on hotrolled steel from Thailand. We will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend
liquidation of all entries of hot-rolled
steel manufactured and exported by SSI
and entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
79810
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Notices
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0195 or (202) 482–
3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Background
On November 29, 2001, the
Department published the antidumping
duty order on hot-rolled steel from
Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Thailand, 66 FR 59562
(November 29, 2001) (‘‘Hot-Rolled Steel
Order’’). In November 2004, in the
course of the 2003–2004 administrative
review, SSI requested revocation of the
Hot-Rolled Steel Order with respect to
its sales of subject merchandise. See
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Thailand; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to
Revoke and Rescind in Part, 70 FR
73197 (December 9, 2005).
In its revocation request, SSI agreed to
immediate reinstatement in the HotRolled Steel Order, as long as any
producer or reseller is subject to the
order, should the Department determine
that SSI ‘‘sold the subject merchandise
at less than normal value.’’ See SSI’s
November 30, 2004, letter to the
Department requesting revocation. On
May 17, 2006, the Department revoked
the antidumping duty order with
respect to SSI under 19 C.F.R.
351.222(e)(1) and 351.222(f) after having
determined that SSI sold merchandise
subject to this review at not less than
NV for a period of at least three
consecutive years.1 See Revocation.
On November 8, 2006, United States
Steel Corporation (‘‘Petitioner’’)
submitted an allegation arguing that SSI
has resumed dumping hot-rolled steel in
the United States since revocation from
the Hot-Rolled Steel Order, and
requested that the Department initiate a
changed circumstances review. See
Petitioner’s November 8, 2006, letter to
the Department. Petitioner requested
that the Department reinstate the HotRolled Steel Order with respect to SSI’s
exports to the United States of hot1 The three administrative reviews forming the
basis of the revocation are: 1) the May 3, 2001,
through October 31, 2002, review, Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
19388 (April 13, 2004); 2) the November 1, 2002,
through October 31, 2003, review, Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand:
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 18349 (April 7, 2004); and 3) the
November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004,
review, Revocation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:29 Dec 30, 2008
Jkt 217001
rolled steel produced by SSI. The
Department requested additional
information from Petitioner on
December 1, 2006, December 22, 2006,
February 1, 2007, and December 11,
2007. Petitioner filed responses to the
Department’s request for additional
information on December 5, 2006,
January 12, 2007, February 26, 2007,
and January 29, 2008, respectively.
In its February 1, 2007, request for
additional information, the Department
requested that Petitioner update its U.S.,
home market, and cost data for SSI for
the period October 1, 2005 through
September 30, 2006. See the
Department’s February 1, 2007, request
for additional information at question 1.
In its February 26, 2007, response,
Petitioner updated its request by using
the time period October 1, 2005,
through September 30, 2006, for its
margin analysis as requested by the
Department. Petitioner also utilized a
Kim Eng Live (‘‘Kelive’’) Market
Analysis report dated February 14,
2007, to value slab for use in
constructed value (‘‘CV’’) because it
could not find home market or third
country prices for hot-rolled steel for the
period October 1, 2005, through
September 30, 2006, to use as the basis
for NV. See Exhibit 2, pages 1–4 of
Petitioner’s February 26, 2007,
submission.
On May 11, 2007, the Department met
with Petitioner to discuss its request for
a changed circumstances review for SSI.
See Memorandum to the File, dated
May 14, 2007. On September 27, 2007,
Petitioner submitted slab cost data for
SSI from two sources independent of
the Kelive Market Analysis. On
November 20, 2007, the Department
released to parties information regarding
its inquiries into Petitioner’s use of slab
cost from the Kelive Market Analysis.
See the Department’s November 20,
2007, Memorandum to the File and
accompanying e-mail attachments.
On December 11, 2007, the
Department requested that Petitioner
update its changed circumstances
review request to use more
contemporaneous information for its
margin analysis (i.e., July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007). Additionally,
the Department requested that Petitioner
update its request for the October 1,
2005, through September 30, 2006,
period using the two sources of data
provided in its September 27, 2007,
submission to value steel slab. See the
Department’s December 11, 2007,
request for additional information at
question 1. In its January 29, 2008,
response, Petitioner updated its review
request pursuant to the requests of the
Department and based its amended
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
allegation on sales and cost information
for the period of review July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007.
In its January 29, 2008, submission,
Petitioner provided price quotes
concerning SSI’s sales activity in the
U.S. and cost information for its NV
(CV) calculation, and argued that SSI
had sold hot-rolled steel at less than NV
during the period July 1, 2006, through
June 30, 2007. Petitioner stated that it
was unable to obtain SSI’s home market
or third country prices for either the
proposed 2005–2006 or 2006–2007
periods of review (‘‘PORs’’). See
Petitioner’s February 26, 2007, and
March 5, 2008, submissions. Therefore,
Petitioner based NV for sales made by
SSI in the United States on CV and
provided a comparison of U.S. price to
CV. See Exhibit 2 pages 1–4 of
Petitioner’s February 26, 2007,
submission for the 2005–2006 period
and pages 2–5 of Petitioner’s March 5,
2008, submission for the 2006–2007
period. Petitioner provided information
showing estimated dumping margins
range from 0.60 percent to 28.22
percent. See Changed Circumstances
Review Initiation Checklist, dated
March 21, 2008.
On January 17, 2007, February 22,
2007, and February 5, 2008, SSI
submitted letters to the Department
requesting that it be granted an
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
in order to have access to proprietary
information submitted by Petitioner. On
February 16, 2007, March 2, 2007, and
February 14, 2008, respectively, the
Department responded to these requests,
explaining, in part, that the Department
could not grant APO access pursuant to
19 C.F.R. 351.104(a) to SSI because a
changed circumstances review had not
been initiated. See the Department’s
February 16, 2007, March 2, 2007, and
February 14, 2008, letters to SSI.
On December 12, 2006, January 4,
2007, January 17, 2007, March 7, 2007,
March 28, 2007, April 5, 2007, April 10,
2007, November 28, 2007, February 12,
2008, March 21, 2008, and August 25,
2008, SSI filed letters contesting
Petitioner’s request for a changed
circumstances review. SSI asserted that
section 751(b) of the Act, the statutory
provision governing changed
circumstance reviews, does not cover
reinstatement of a revoked company
into an antidumping duty order. SSI
argued that a changed circumstances
review of affirmative dumping or injury
determinations is allowed, but that the
statute does not mention the
reinstatement of a previously revoked
company. SSI maintained that once an
antidumping duty order is revoked,
whether in whole or in part, the
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Notices
underlying injury and dumping
determinations no longer apply to the
merchandise that has been revoked, and
that the Department relinquishes
jurisdiction over the merchandise
covered.
On December 21, 2006, January 12,
2007, March 23, 2007, April 2, 2007,
and April 9, 2007, Petitioner filed
rebuttal comments to SSI’s comments.
Petitioner argued that the Department
rejected arguments similar to SSI’s
contentions regarding the Department’s
legal authority to reinstate the order in
a previous case. See Sebacic Acid from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review and
Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty
Order, 70 FR 16218 (March 30, 2005).
Petitioner also argued that SSI’s
contention, that the Department
imposed a rigorous evidentiary standard
for initiation for a changed
circumstances review, is incorrect.
Petitioner claimed that the Department
should not impose a higher standard for
a respondent with a prior history of
dumping than it would for a respondent
without a prior history of dumping.
Petitioner maintained that the standard
for initiation of a changed
circumstances review should be lower
than that for an investigation. However,
regardless of the standard, Petitioner
claimed that it has demonstrated that
SSI has resumed dumping.
On April 7, 2008, the Department
initiated a changed circumstances
review to determine whether SSI had
resumed dumping hot-rolled steel and
whether to reinstate SSI in the
antidumping order for hot-rolled steel
from Thailand. See Initiation Notice. We
issued a questionnaire to SSI on April
11, 2008. SSI submitted its responses to
sections A, B, C, and D of our
questionnaire on May 23, 2008, June 6,
2008, June 9, 2008, and June 16, 2008,
respectively. On July 18, 2008, we
issued our first supplemental
questionnaire to SSI covering sections
A, B, and C, and issued a follow-up
supplemental questionnaire on August
7, 2008. SSI submitted its response to
our July 18, 2008, and August 7, 2008,
questionnaires on August 15, 2008. On
August 6, 2008, we issued a first
supplemental questionnaire to SSI
covering section D of the response to
which SSI responded on September 5,
2008. On August 25, 2008, SSI
submitted a request that the Department
reconsider and terminate the changed
circumstances review. On September
18, 2008, we issued a third
supplemental questionnaire to SSI
covering sections A, B, and C. SSI
submitted its response to this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:29 Dec 30, 2008
Jkt 217001
questionnaire on October 2, 2008. On
October 29, 2008, we extended the due
date for the final results of this review
to April 22, 2009. See Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for
Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Review, 73 FR 64303 (October 29, 2008)
(‘‘Extension Notice’’). On November 17,
2008, we issued a second supplemental
questionnaire to SSI covering section D
of the response. SSI responded to this
supplemental questionnaire on
December 1, 2008. On December 10,
2008, we published a notice correcting
the POR listed in the Extension Notice.
See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Thailand: Correction
of Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Review, 73 FR 75079 (December 10,
2008). On December 11, 2008, Petitioner
submitted comments for consideration
in these preliminary results of review.
On December 17, SSI submitted
comments in response to Petitioner’s
December 11, 2008, letter. Based on our
analysis of SSI’s home market and U.S.
sales data, we preliminarily determine
that SSI sold hot-rolled steel at issue at
less than NV during the July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007, POR.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the
Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.307(b)(iv), the
Department verified the cost of
production (‘‘COP’’), CV, home market
sales, and U.S. sales questionnaire
responses of SSI. We conducted the
home market and U.S. sales verification
from October 27, 2008, through October
31, 2008. We conducted the COP/CV
verification from December 15, 2008,
through December 19, 2008. We used
standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant sales
and financial records. Our verification
results are outlined in the home market
and U.S. sales verification report for
SSI. For a further discussion, see
Memorandum to the File through
Richard O. Weible and Angelica
Mendoza, from John K. Drury, dated
December 19, 2008. The verification
report for the COP/CV verification will
be issued subsequent to these
preliminary results of review.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of the order, the
products covered are certain hot-rolled
carbon steel flat products of a
rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch
or greater, neither clad, plated, nor
coated with metal and whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other non-metallic
substances, in coils (whether or not in
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79811
successively superimposed layers),
regardless of thickness, and in straight
lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75
mm and of a width measuring at least
10 times the thickness. Universal mill
plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on
four faces or in a closed box pass, of a
width exceeding 150 mm, but not
exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness
of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and
without patterns in relief) of a thickness
not less than 4.0 mm is not included
within the scope of the order.
Specifically included within the
scope of the order are vacuum degassed,
fully stabilized (commonly referred to as
interstitial-free (‘‘IF’’)) steels, high
strength low alloy (‘‘HSLA’’) steels, and
the substrate for motor lamination
steels. IF steels are recognized as low
carbon steels with micro-alloying levels
of elements such as titanium or niobium
(also commonly referred to as
columbium), or both, added to stabilize
carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA
steels are recognized as steels with
micro-alloying levels of elements such
as chromium, copper, niobium,
vanadium, and molybdenum. The
substrate for motor lamination steels
contains micro-alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the
scope of the order, regardless of
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’), are products in which: i)
iron predominates, by weight, over each
of the other contained elements; ii) the
carbon content is 2 percent or less, by
weight; and iii) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity, by
weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical
and chemical description provided
above are within the scope of the order
unless otherwise excluded.
The following products, by way of
example, are outside or specifically
excluded from the scope of the order:
-Alloy hot-rolled steel products in
which at least one of the chemical
elements exceeds those listed above
(including, e.g., American Society
for Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’)
specifications A543, A387, A514,
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
79812
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Notices
A517, A506).
-Society of Automotive Engineers
(‘‘SAE’’)/American Iron & Steel
Institute (‘‘AISI’’) grades of series
2300 and higher.
-Ball bearing steels, as defined in the
HTSUS.
-Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
-Silico-manganese (as defined in the
HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel
with a silicon level exceeding 2.25
percent.
-ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
-USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS
AR 400, USS AR 500).
-All products (proprietary or
otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM
specification (sample specifications:
ASTM A506, A507).
-Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils,
which are the result of having been
processed by cutting or stamping
and which have assumed the
character of articles or products
classified outside chapter 72 of the
HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to the order
is currently classified in the HTSUS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,
7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,
7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,
7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,
7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,
7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,
7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90,
7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00,
7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90.
Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products covered by the order,
including: vacuum degassed fully
stabilized; high strength low alloy; and
the substrate for motor lamination steel
may also enter under the following tariff
numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00,
7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,
7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00,
7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and
7226.99.01.80. Subject merchandise
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00,
7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and
7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise
is dispositive.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:29 Dec 30, 2008
Jkt 217001
Basis for Reinstatement
In requesting revocation, pursuant to
19 C.F.R. 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B), SSI agreed
to immediate reinstatement of the order,
so long as any exporter or producer is
subject to the order, if the Secretary
concludes that subsequent to the
revocation, SSI sold hot-rolled steel at
less than NV. See Revocation. Under 19
C.F.R. 351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) as long as any
exporter or producer is subject to an
antidumping duty order which remains
in force, an entity previously granted a
revocation may be reinstated under that
order if it is established that the entity
has resumed the dumping of subject
merchandise.
In this case, because other exporters
in Thailand remain subject to the HotRolled Steel Order, the order remains in
effect, and SSI may be reinstated in the
order. The Department granted SSI
revocation based in part upon its
agreement to immediate reinstatement
in the antidumping duty order if the
Department were to find that the
company resumed dumping of hotrolled steel from Thailand. See
Revocation.
As described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections, below, we
have examined SSI’s response and have
preliminarily found that SSI’s dumping
margin for the review period is greater
than de minimis. Accordingly, we
preliminarily intend to reinstate SSI in
the antidumping order.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of hotrolled steel from Thailand to the United
States were made at less than NV, we
compared SSI’s export price (‘‘EP’’)
sales made in the United States to
unaffiliated purchasers, 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, we compared
individual EP sales to monthly
weighted-average NVs.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act we considered all products
produced by SSI covered by the
description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’
section, above, and sold in the home
market during the POR, to be foreign
like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. We first
attempted to compare contemporaneous
U.S. and comparison-market sales of
products that are identical with respect
to the following characteristics: 1)
whether painted or not; 2) quality; 3)
carbon content; 4) yield strength; 5)
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
thickness; 5) width; 6) whether cut-tolength or coil; 7) whether temper rolled
or not; 8) whether pickled or not; 9)
edge trim; and 10) with or without
patterns in relief. Where we were unable
to compare sales of the identical
merchandise, we compared U.S. sales to
comparison-market sales of the most
similar merchandise based on the above
characteristics. Where there were no
sales of foreign like product to compare
to a U.S. sale, we compared the price of
the U.S. sale to CV.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we base NV on sales made
in the comparison market at the same
level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP
transaction. The NV LOT is defined as
the starting-price sales in the home
market or, when NV is based on CV, as
the sales from which selling, general,
and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses
and profit are derived. The EP LOT is
defined as the starting price in the
United States to the unaffiliated U.S.
customer.
We obtained information from SSI
regarding the marketing stages involved
in making its reported foreign market
and U.S. sales to unaffiliated customers.
SSI provided a description of all selling
activities performed, along with a
flowchart and tables comparing the
LOTs among each channel of
distribution and customer category for
both markets. See SSI’s May 23, 2008,
questionnaire response at exhibit A–7
and its August 15, 2008, supplemental
questionnaire response at page
S1ABC8–11 (page 11).
For the United States market, SSI
stated that it sells through one channel
and only to trading companies, and that
the trading companies take title to the
subject merchandise in Thailand for all
shipments. See SSI’s May 23, 2008,
questionnaire response at A–23 and A–
24. We reviewed the level at which SSI
performed each of the claimed selling
functions with respect to the claimed
customer category. For all of the
activities listed, the level of
performance for both direct shipments
and warehouse shipments was
substantially identical across all types of
classes of customers. Based on our
analysis of all of SSI’s selling functions
for sales to the United States, we find all
United States sales were made at the
same LOT, i.e., the EP LOT.
For the home market, SSI identified
three channels of distribution described
as follows: 1) direct shipments to
unaffiliated end-users/resellers; 2) sales
through affiliated trading companies;
and 3) sales through affiliated resellers/
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
end users. In addition, SSI identified
three classes of customers: 1) Domestic
Sales A–1; 2) Domestic Sales A–2; and
3) Domestic Sales B customers. See
SSI’s May 23, 2008, questionnaire
response at pages A–6 and A–7. We
reviewed the level at which SSI
performed each of the claimed selling
functions with respect to each claimed
channel of distribution and customer
category. For all of the activities listed
(which included sales promotion,
technical services, inventory
management, financing, and arranging
freight/delivery), the level of
performance for both direct shipments
and warehouse shipments was
substantially identical across all types of
channels and classes of customers.
Based on our analysis of all of SSI’s
home market selling functions, we find
all home market sales were made at the
same LOT, i.e., the NV LOT. We also
found that SSI provided a similar level
of selling functions on all of its EP sales,
and that the level of these EP selling
functions was comparable to the level of
selling functions that SSI performed on
its home market sales. Based on the
foregoing, we determine that there is
one LOT on SSI’s EP sales and that the
EP LOT is comparable to the HM LOT.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that an LOT adjustment is not
warranted.
for all sales to the United States, as
evidence on the record indicates that
terms of sale may change up to the
issuance of the invoice. See Analysis
Memorandum, dated concurrently with
this notice.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there is a
sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product is greater than five
percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared SSI’s volume of
home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of its U.S. sales
of the merchandise subject to this
review, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because SSI’s
aggregate volume of home market sales
of the foreign like product was greater
than five percent of its aggregate volume
of U.S. sales for subject merchandise,
we determined the home market was
viable. See, e.g., SSI’s May 23, 2008,
questionnaire response at Appendix A–
1.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Because Petitioner’s allegation that
SSI made sales at less than NV was
based in part on the allegation that SSI
U.S. Price
made sales below the COP during the
POR, we had reasonable grounds to
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP
believe or suspect that sales of the
as ‘‘the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be foreign like product under consideration
for the determination of NV in this
sold) before the date of importation by
review may have been made at prices
the producer or exporter of subject
below the COP, as provided by section
merchandise outside of the United
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. See Changed
States to an unaffiliated purchaser for
Circumstances Review Initiation
exportation to the United States.’’ For
purposes of this changed circumstances Checklist dated March 28, 2008.
review, SSI classified all of its U.S. sales Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,
we initiated a COP investigation of sales
shipped directly from Thailand to the
by SSI. See Initiation Notice at 18768–
United States as EP sales. For these
18769.
preliminary results, we have accepted
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
this classification. The merchandise
of the Act, we calculated COP based on
shipped directly to unaffiliated
the sum of SSI’s cost of materials and
customers in the U.S. market was not
sold through an affiliated U.S. importer, fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for general and
and we find no other grounds for
administrative expenses (‘‘G&A’’), and
treating these transactions as CEP sales.
interest expenses. We relied on the COP
We, therefore, preliminarily determine
information provided by SSI, with
that these transactions were EP sales.
modifications. SSI reported its costs on
Export Price
the basis of the products’ cost of goods
sold (‘‘COGS’’) rather than the cost of
We calculated EP in accordance with
manufacturing (‘‘COM’’). As it is our
section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP
normal practice to rely on the COM
on packed prices to customers in the
United States. We made adjustments for during the POR, we adjusted the
reported costs for each CONNUM to
the following movement expenses:
reflect the difference between the
foreign inland freight, and foreign
average per-unit COGS and the average
brokerage and handling charges.
per-unit COM. SSI purchased slab and
We have preliminarily determined to
use the date of invoice as the date of sale certain services from affiliates. We
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:29 Dec 30, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79813
analyzed these transactions in
accordance with the transactions
disregarded rule (i.e., section 773(f)(2) of
the Act) and adjusted the reported costs
to reflect the higher of the transfer price
or market price. We revised the
calculation of the G&A expense ratio by
adding back to the numerator of the
calculation the amounts SSI reported as
offsets for the ‘‘reversal allowance for
diminution in value of raw materials
and finished goods’’ and the ‘‘reversal of
allowance for diminution in value of
spare parts and consumable goods.’’ In
order to keep the calculations of the
G&A and financial expense ratios on the
same basis as the reported COM, we
subtracted the portion of scrap that was
taken as an offset in the calculation of
COM from the denominators of the ratio
calculations. See Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation
Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results, dated concurrently with this
notice.
To determine whether SSI’s home
market sales had been made at prices
below the COP, we computed weightedaverage 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.
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
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
79814
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 30, 2008 / Notices
evidence on the record indicates that
terms of sale may change up to the
issuance of the invoice. See Analysis
Memorandum, dated concurrently with
this notice.
C. Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e) of
the Act, we calculated CV based on the
sum of SSI’s material and fabrication
costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S.
packing costs. We calculated the COP
component of CV as described above in
the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’
section of this notice. 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 foreign country.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act.
Our cost test for SSI revealed that, for
home market sales of certain models,
less than 20 percent of the sales of those
models were at prices below the COP.
We therefore retained all such sales in
our analysis and used them as the basis
for determining NV. Our cost test also
indicated that for home market sales of
other models, more than 20 percent
were sold at prices below the COP
within an extended period of time and
were at prices which would not permit
the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time. Thus, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act, we excluded these below-cost sales
from our analysis and used the
remaining above-cost sales as the basis
for determining NV.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily determine the following
weighted-average dumping margin
exists for the period July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007:
D. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on prices to
unaffiliated customers, as well as
affiliated customers whose sales passed
the arm’s-length test, in Thailand. We
used SSI’s adjustments and deductions
as reported. We made deductions,
where appropriate, for foreign inland
freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)
of the Act. In addition, for comparisons
involving similar merchandise, we
made adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise
compared pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.411. We also made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale
(‘‘COS’’) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We made COS adjustments for
imputed credit expenses. Finally, we
deducted home market packing costs
and added U.S. packing costs in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act.
We have preliminarily determined to
use the date of invoice as the date of sale
for all sales in the home market, as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:29 Dec 30, 2008
Jkt 217001
E. Price-to-CV Comparisons
If we were unable to find a home
market match of such or similar
merchandise, in accordance with
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based
NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made
adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales,
as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank,
in accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Act.
Manufacturer/Exporter
Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited ...............
Margin
(Percent)
9.05
The Department will disclose to
parties the calculations performed in
connection with these preliminary
results within ten days of the date of
publication of this notice. Interested
parties may request a hearing within 30
days of the publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 39 days after the
publication of this notice or the first
workday thereafter. Interested parties
may submit case briefs the later of 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice or seven days after the issuance
of the final verification report,
whichever date is later. Rebuttal briefs,
limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than seven
days after the date on which the case
briefs were due.
Reinstatement and Suspension of
Liquidation
Since we have preliminarily
established that hot-rolled steel from
Thailand manufactured and exported by
SSI is being sold at less than NV, SSI is
hereby preliminarily reinstated in the
antidumping duty order. We will
instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of
all entries of subject merchandise
manufactured and exported by SSI
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Register. Furthermore, a cash-deposit
requirement of 6.42 percent will be in
effect for all shipments of the subject
merchandise manufactured and
exported by SSI entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date of this notice.
This requirement shall remain in effect
until further notice.
The Department intends to complete
this review by April 22, 2009. See
Extension Notice. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), the final results of
the changed circumstance review will
set forth the factual and legal
conclusions upon which our results are
based, a description of any action
proposed based on those results, and
our analysis of any comments received.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(b) and
771(i) of the Act.
Dated: December 19, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–30993 Filed 12–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket Number 0812021543–81546–01]
Precision Measurement Grants
Program; Availability of Funds
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
announces that the Precision
Measurement Grants Program is
soliciting applications for financial
assistance for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. The
Precision Measurement Grants Program
is seeking proposals for significant
research in the field of fundamental
measurement or the determination of
fundamental constants.
DATES: Abbreviated proposals must be
received at the address listed below no
later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
on February 6, 2009. Proposals received
after this deadline will be returned with
no further consideration. Finalists will
be selected by approximately March 27,
2009, and will be requested to submit
full proposals to NIST. All full
proposals, paper and electronic, must be
received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time on May 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Abbreviated proposals and
paper final applications must be
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79809-79814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30993]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-817]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand:
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Intent To
Reinstate Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited in the
Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 17, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') revoked in part the antidumping duty order on certain
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (``hot-rolled steel'') from
Thailand with respect to Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company
Limited (``SSI'') after having determined that SSI sold the merchandise
at not less than normal value (``NV'') for a period of at least three
consecutive years. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Partial Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 28659 (May 17, 2006)
(``Revocation''). As the result of an adequate allegation from a
domestic interested party in this proceeding, the Department, pursuant
to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''), is now conducting a changed circumstances review to determine
whether SSI has resumed dumping hot-rolled steel and whether the
antidumping order should be reinstated for hot-rolled steel from
Thailand manufactured and exported by SSI. See Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 73 FR 18766 (April 7, 2008)
(``Initiation Notice''). We preliminarily determine that SSI has sold
hot-rolled steel at less than NV and that hot-rolled steel produced and
exported by SSI should be reinstated in the antidumping duty order on
hot-rolled steel from Thailand. We will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all entries of
hot-rolled steel manufactured and exported by SSI and entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
[[Page 79810]]
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-0195 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 29, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on hot-rolled steel from Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand, 66 FR
59562 (November 29, 2001) (``Hot-Rolled Steel Order''). In November
2004, in the course of the 2003-2004 administrative review, SSI
requested revocation of the Hot-Rolled Steel Order with respect to its
sales of subject merchandise. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke and Rescind in Part, 70 FR
73197 (December 9, 2005).
In its revocation request, SSI agreed to immediate reinstatement in
the Hot-Rolled Steel Order, as long as any producer or reseller is
subject to the order, should the Department determine that SSI ``sold
the subject merchandise at less than normal value.'' See SSI's November
30, 2004, letter to the Department requesting revocation. On May 17,
2006, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order with respect to
SSI under 19 C.F.R. 351.222(e)(1) and 351.222(f) after having
determined that SSI sold merchandise subject to this review at not less
than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years.\1\ See
Revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The three administrative reviews forming the basis of the
revocation are: 1) the May 3, 2001, through October 31, 2002,
review, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 19388 (April 13, 2004); 2) the November
1, 2002, through October 31, 2003, review, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 18349 (April 7, 2004); and 3) the
November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004, review, Revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2006, United States Steel Corporation
(``Petitioner'') submitted an allegation arguing that SSI has resumed
dumping hot-rolled steel in the United States since revocation from the
Hot-Rolled Steel Order, and requested that the Department initiate a
changed circumstances review. See Petitioner's November 8, 2006, letter
to the Department. Petitioner requested that the Department reinstate
the Hot-Rolled Steel Order with respect to SSI's exports to the United
States of hot-rolled steel produced by SSI. The Department requested
additional information from Petitioner on December 1, 2006, December
22, 2006, February 1, 2007, and December 11, 2007. Petitioner filed
responses to the Department's request for additional information on
December 5, 2006, January 12, 2007, February 26, 2007, and January 29,
2008, respectively.
In its February 1, 2007, request for additional information, the
Department requested that Petitioner update its U.S., home market, and
cost data for SSI for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30,
2006. See the Department's February 1, 2007, request for additional
information at question 1. In its February 26, 2007, response,
Petitioner updated its request by using the time period October 1,
2005, through September 30, 2006, for its margin analysis as requested
by the Department. Petitioner also utilized a Kim Eng Live (``Kelive'')
Market Analysis report dated February 14, 2007, to value slab for use
in constructed value (``CV'') because it could not find home market or
third country prices for hot-rolled steel for the period October 1,
2005, through September 30, 2006, to use as the basis for NV. See
Exhibit 2, pages 1-4 of Petitioner's February 26, 2007, submission.
On May 11, 2007, the Department met with Petitioner to discuss its
request for a changed circumstances review for SSI. See Memorandum to
the File, dated May 14, 2007. On September 27, 2007, Petitioner
submitted slab cost data for SSI from two sources independent of the
Kelive Market Analysis. On November 20, 2007, the Department released
to parties information regarding its inquiries into Petitioner's use of
slab cost from the Kelive Market Analysis. See the Department's
November 20, 2007, Memorandum to the File and accompanying e-mail
attachments.
On December 11, 2007, the Department requested that Petitioner
update its changed circumstances review request to use more
contemporaneous information for its margin analysis (i.e., July 1,
2006, through June 30, 2007). Additionally, the Department requested
that Petitioner update its request for the October 1, 2005, through
September 30, 2006, period using the two sources of data provided in
its September 27, 2007, submission to value steel slab. See the
Department's December 11, 2007, request for additional information at
question 1. In its January 29, 2008, response, Petitioner updated its
review request pursuant to the requests of the Department and based its
amended allegation on sales and cost information for the period of
review July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007.
In its January 29, 2008, submission, Petitioner provided price
quotes concerning SSI's sales activity in the U.S. and cost information
for its NV (CV) calculation, and argued that SSI had sold hot-rolled
steel at less than NV during the period July 1, 2006, through June 30,
2007. Petitioner stated that it was unable to obtain SSI's home market
or third country prices for either the proposed 2005-2006 or 2006-2007
periods of review (``PORs''). See Petitioner's February 26, 2007, and
March 5, 2008, submissions. Therefore, Petitioner based NV for sales
made by SSI in the United States on CV and provided a comparison of
U.S. price to CV. See Exhibit 2 pages 1-4 of Petitioner's February 26,
2007, submission for the 2005-2006 period and pages 2-5 of Petitioner's
March 5, 2008, submission for the 2006-2007 period. Petitioner provided
information showing estimated dumping margins range from 0.60 percent
to 28.22 percent. See Changed Circumstances Review Initiation
Checklist, dated March 21, 2008.
On January 17, 2007, February 22, 2007, and February 5, 2008, SSI
submitted letters to the Department requesting that it be granted an
administrative protective order (``APO'') in order to have access to
proprietary information submitted by Petitioner. On February 16, 2007,
March 2, 2007, and February 14, 2008, respectively, the Department
responded to these requests, explaining, in part, that the Department
could not grant APO access pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.104(a) to SSI
because a changed circumstances review had not been initiated. See the
Department's February 16, 2007, March 2, 2007, and February 14, 2008,
letters to SSI.
On December 12, 2006, January 4, 2007, January 17, 2007, March 7,
2007, March 28, 2007, April 5, 2007, April 10, 2007, November 28, 2007,
February 12, 2008, March 21, 2008, and August 25, 2008, SSI filed
letters contesting Petitioner's request for a changed circumstances
review. SSI asserted that section 751(b) of the Act, the statutory
provision governing changed circumstance reviews, does not cover
reinstatement of a revoked company into an antidumping duty order. SSI
argued that a changed circumstances review of affirmative dumping or
injury determinations is allowed, but that the statute does not mention
the reinstatement of a previously revoked company. SSI maintained that
once an antidumping duty order is revoked, whether in whole or in part,
the
[[Page 79811]]
underlying injury and dumping determinations no longer apply to the
merchandise that has been revoked, and that the Department relinquishes
jurisdiction over the merchandise covered.
On December 21, 2006, January 12, 2007, March 23, 2007, April 2,
2007, and April 9, 2007, Petitioner filed rebuttal comments to SSI's
comments. Petitioner argued that the Department rejected arguments
similar to SSI's contentions regarding the Department's legal authority
to reinstate the order in a previous case. See Sebacic Acid from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty Order,
70 FR 16218 (March 30, 2005). Petitioner also argued that SSI's
contention, that the Department imposed a rigorous evidentiary standard
for initiation for a changed circumstances review, is incorrect.
Petitioner claimed that the Department should not impose a higher
standard for a respondent with a prior history of dumping than it would
for a respondent without a prior history of dumping. Petitioner
maintained that the standard for initiation of a changed circumstances
review should be lower than that for an investigation. However,
regardless of the standard, Petitioner claimed that it has demonstrated
that SSI has resumed dumping.
On April 7, 2008, the Department initiated a changed circumstances
review to determine whether SSI had resumed dumping hot-rolled steel
and whether to reinstate SSI in the antidumping order for hot-rolled
steel from Thailand. See Initiation Notice. We issued a questionnaire
to SSI on April 11, 2008. SSI submitted its responses to sections A, B,
C, and D of our questionnaire on May 23, 2008, June 6, 2008, June 9,
2008, and June 16, 2008, respectively. On July 18, 2008, we issued our
first supplemental questionnaire to SSI covering sections A, B, and C,
and issued a follow-up supplemental questionnaire on August 7, 2008.
SSI submitted its response to our July 18, 2008, and August 7, 2008,
questionnaires on August 15, 2008. On August 6, 2008, we issued a first
supplemental questionnaire to SSI covering section D of the response to
which SSI responded on September 5, 2008. On August 25, 2008, SSI
submitted a request that the Department reconsider and terminate the
changed circumstances review. On September 18, 2008, we issued a third
supplemental questionnaire to SSI covering sections A, B, and C. SSI
submitted its response to this questionnaire on October 2, 2008. On
October 29, 2008, we extended the due date for the final results of
this review to April 22, 2009. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Review, 73 FR 64303 (October 29, 2008)
(``Extension Notice''). On November 17, 2008, we issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to SSI covering section D of the response.
SSI responded to this supplemental questionnaire on December 1, 2008.
On December 10, 2008, we published a notice correcting the POR listed
in the Extension Notice. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Thailand: Correction of Notice of Extension of Time Limit
for Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 73 FR 75079
(December 10, 2008). On December 11, 2008, Petitioner submitted
comments for consideration in these preliminary results of review. On
December 17, SSI submitted comments in response to Petitioner's
December 11, 2008, letter. Based on our analysis of SSI's home market
and U.S. sales data, we preliminarily determine that SSI sold hot-
rolled steel at issue at less than NV during the July 1, 2006, through
June 30, 2007, POR.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and 19 C.F.R.
351.307(b)(iv), the Department verified the cost of production
(``COP''), CV, home market sales, and U.S. sales questionnaire
responses of SSI. We conducted the home market and U.S. sales
verification from October 27, 2008, through October 31, 2008. We
conducted the COP/CV verification from December 15, 2008, through
December 19, 2008. We used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification
results are outlined in the home market and U.S. sales verification
report for SSI. For a further discussion, see Memorandum to the File
through Richard O. Weible and Angelica Mendoza, from John K. Drury,
dated December 19, 2008. The verification report for the COP/CV
verification will be issued subsequent to these preliminary results of
review.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of the order, the products covered are certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of
0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and
whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other
non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively
superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths,
of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least
10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width
exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not
less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a
thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of the
order.
Specifically included within the scope of the order are vacuum
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free
(``IF'')) steels, high strength low alloy (``HSLA'') steels, and the
substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low
carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium
or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper,
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination
steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and
aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the scope of the order, regardless
of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight,
over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description
provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise
excluded.
The following products, by way of example, are outside or
specifically excluded from the scope of the order:
-Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the
chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., American
Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') specifications A543, A387,
A514,
[[Page 79812]]
A517, A506).
-Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE'')/American Iron & Steel
Institute (``AISI'') grades of series 2300 and higher.
-Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
-Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
-Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical
steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
-ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
-USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
-All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM
specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
-Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of
having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the
character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the
HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the
HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90.
Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by the order,
including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy;
and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the
following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50,
7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00,
7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00,
7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.01.80. Subject
merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00,
7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Basis for Reinstatement
In requesting revocation, pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
351.222(b)(2)(i)(B), SSI agreed to immediate reinstatement of the
order, so long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if
the Secretary concludes that subsequent to the revocation, SSI sold
hot-rolled steel at less than NV. See Revocation. Under 19 C.F.R.
351.222(b)(2)(i)(B) as long as any exporter or producer is subject to
an antidumping duty order which remains in force, an entity previously
granted a revocation may be reinstated under that order if it is
established that the entity has resumed the dumping of subject
merchandise.
In this case, because other exporters in Thailand remain subject to
the Hot-Rolled Steel Order, the order remains in effect, and SSI may be
reinstated in the order. The Department granted SSI revocation based in
part upon its agreement to immediate reinstatement in the antidumping
duty order if the Department were to find that the company resumed
dumping of hot-rolled steel from Thailand. See Revocation.
As described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections,
below, we have examined SSI's response and have preliminarily found
that SSI's dumping margin for the review period is greater than de
minimis. Accordingly, we preliminarily intend to reinstate SSI in the
antidumping order.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of hot-rolled steel from Thailand to the
United States were made at less than NV, we compared SSI's export price
(``EP'') sales made in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers, 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,
we compared individual EP sales to monthly weighted-average NVs.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act we considered all
products produced by SSI covered by the description in the ``Scope of
the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR,
to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate
product comparisons to U.S. sales. We first attempted to compare
contemporaneous U.S. and comparison-market sales of products that are
identical with respect to the following characteristics: 1) whether
painted or not; 2) quality; 3) carbon content; 4) yield strength; 5)
thickness; 5) width; 6) whether cut-to-length or coil; 7) whether
temper rolled or not; 8) whether pickled or not; 9) edge trim; and 10)
with or without patterns in relief. Where we were unable to compare
sales of the identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales to
comparison-market sales of the most similar merchandise based on the
above characteristics. Where there were no sales of foreign like
product to compare to a U.S. sale, we compared the price of the U.S.
sale to CV.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP transaction. The NV LOT is
defined as the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is
based on CV, as the sales from which selling, general, and
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit are derived. The EP LOT
is defined as the starting price in the United States to the
unaffiliated U.S. customer.
We obtained information from SSI regarding the marketing stages
involved in making its reported foreign market and U.S. sales to
unaffiliated customers. SSI provided a description of all selling
activities performed, along with a flowchart and tables comparing the
LOTs among each channel of distribution and customer category for both
markets. See SSI's May 23, 2008, questionnaire response at exhibit A-7
and its August 15, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response at page
S1ABC8-11 (page 11).
For the United States market, SSI stated that it sells through one
channel and only to trading companies, and that the trading companies
take title to the subject merchandise in Thailand for all shipments.
See SSI's May 23, 2008, questionnaire response at A-23 and A-24. We
reviewed the level at which SSI performed each of the claimed selling
functions with respect to the claimed customer category. For all of the
activities listed, the level of performance for both direct shipments
and warehouse shipments was substantially identical across all types of
classes of customers. Based on our analysis of all of SSI's selling
functions for sales to the United States, we find all United States
sales were made at the same LOT, i.e., the EP LOT.
For the home market, SSI identified three channels of distribution
described as follows: 1) direct shipments to unaffiliated end-users/
resellers; 2) sales through affiliated trading companies; and 3) sales
through affiliated resellers/
[[Page 79813]]
end users. In addition, SSI identified three classes of customers: 1)
Domestic Sales A-1; 2) Domestic Sales A-2; and 3) Domestic Sales B
customers. See SSI's May 23, 2008, questionnaire response at pages A-6
and A-7. We reviewed the level at which SSI performed each of the
claimed selling functions with respect to each claimed channel of
distribution and customer category. For all of the activities listed
(which included sales promotion, technical services, inventory
management, financing, and arranging freight/delivery), the level of
performance for both direct shipments and warehouse shipments was
substantially identical across all types of channels and classes of
customers. Based on our analysis of all of SSI's home market selling
functions, we find all home market sales were made at the same LOT,
i.e., the NV LOT. We also found that SSI provided a similar level of
selling functions on all of its EP sales, and that the level of these
EP selling functions was comparable to the level of selling functions
that SSI performed on its home market sales. Based on the foregoing, we
determine that there is one LOT on SSI's EP sales and that the EP LOT
is comparable to the HM LOT. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that
an LOT adjustment is not warranted.
U.S. Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States.'' For purposes of this changed
circumstances review, SSI classified all of its U.S. sales shipped
directly from Thailand to the United States as EP sales. For these
preliminary results, we have accepted this classification. The
merchandise shipped directly to unaffiliated customers in the U.S.
market was not sold through an affiliated U.S. importer, and we find no
other grounds for treating these transactions as CEP sales. We,
therefore, preliminarily determine that these transactions were EP
sales.
Export Price
We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We
based EP on packed prices to customers in the United States. We made
adjustments for the following movement expenses: foreign inland
freight, and foreign brokerage and handling charges.
We have preliminarily determined to use the date of invoice as the
date of sale for all sales to the United States, as evidence on the
record indicates that terms of sale may change up to the issuance of
the invoice. See Analysis Memorandum, dated concurrently with this
notice.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is
greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared SSI's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
to the volume of its U.S. sales of the merchandise subject to this
review, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because
SSI's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for
subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. See,
e.g., SSI's May 23, 2008, questionnaire response at Appendix A-1.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Because Petitioner's allegation that SSI made sales at less than NV
was based in part on the allegation that SSI made sales below the COP
during the POR, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that
sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the
determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below
the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. See
Changed Circumstances Review Initiation Checklist dated March 28, 2008.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP
investigation of sales by SSI. See Initiation Notice at 18768-18769.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of SSI's cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative
expenses (``G&A''), and interest expenses. We relied on the COP
information provided by SSI, with modifications. SSI reported its costs
on the basis of the products' cost of goods sold (``COGS'') rather than
the cost of manufacturing (``COM''). As it is our normal practice to
rely on the COM during the POR, we adjusted the reported costs for each
CONNUM to reflect the difference between the average per-unit COGS and
the average per-unit COM. SSI purchased slab and certain services from
affiliates. We analyzed these transactions in accordance with the
transactions disregarded rule (i.e., section 773(f)(2) of the Act) and
adjusted the reported costs to reflect the higher of the transfer price
or market price. We revised the calculation of the G&A expense ratio by
adding back to the numerator of the calculation the amounts SSI
reported as offsets for the ``reversal allowance for diminution in
value of raw materials and finished goods'' and the ``reversal of
allowance for diminution in value of spare parts and consumable
goods.'' In order to keep the calculations of the G&A and financial
expense ratios on the same basis as the reported COM, we subtracted the
portion of scrap that was taken as an offset in the calculation of COM
from the denominators of the ratio calculations. See Cost of Production
and Constructed Value Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results, dated concurrently with this notice.
To determine whether SSI'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.
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
[[Page 79814]]
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act.
Our cost test for SSI revealed that, for home market sales of
certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were
at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our
analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test
also indicated that for home market sales of other models, more than 20
percent were sold at prices below the COP within an extended period of
time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from
our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for
determining NV.
C. Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of SSI's material and fabrication costs, SG&A
expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP
component of CV as described above in the ``Cost of Production
Analysis'' section of this notice. 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 foreign country.
D. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers, as well
as affiliated customers whose sales passed the arm's-length test, in
Thailand. We used SSI's adjustments and deductions as reported. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons involving
similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise compared pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
We have preliminarily determined to use the date of invoice as the
date of sale for all sales in the home market, as evidence on the
record indicates that terms of sale may change up to the issuance of
the invoice. See Analysis Memorandum, dated concurrently with this
notice.
E. Price-to-CV Comparisons
If we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based
NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited.......... 9.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within ten days of the
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a
hearing within 30 days of the publication. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 39 days after the publication of this notice or the first
workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs the later
of 30 days after the date of publication of this notice or seven days
after the issuance of the final verification report, whichever date is
later. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs,
may be filed not later than seven days after the date on which the case
briefs were due.
Reinstatement and Suspension of Liquidation
Since we have preliminarily established that hot-rolled steel from
Thailand manufactured and exported by SSI is being sold at less than
NV, SSI is hereby preliminarily reinstated in the antidumping duty
order. We will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of
subject merchandise manufactured and exported by SSI entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Furthermore, a
cash-deposit requirement of 6.42 percent will be in effect for all
shipments of the subject merchandise manufactured and exported by SSI
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of this notice. This requirement shall remain in
effect until further notice.
The Department intends to complete this review by April 22, 2009.
See Extension Notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), the
final results of the changed circumstance review will set forth the
factual and legal conclusions upon which our results are based, a
description of any action proposed based on those results, and our
analysis of any comments received.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b) and
771(i) of the Act.
Dated: December 19, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-30993 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S