Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 39921-39928 [E9-19096]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 152 (Monday, August 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39921-39928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19096]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-849]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is currently 
conducting the 2007/2008 administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate (``CTL Plate'') from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of review 
(``POR'') is November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008. We have 
preliminarily determined that Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co. 
Ltd. (``Valin Xiangtan'') did not make sales to the United States of 
the subject merchandise at prices below normal value. Furthermore, we 
are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Anshan Iron & 
Steel Group (AISCO/Anshan International/Sincerely Asia Ltd.) 
(``Anshan''), Baoshan (Bao/Baoshan International Trade Corp./Bao Steel 
Metals Trading Corp., Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation and Baoshan 
Iron and Steel

[[Page 39922]]

Co., Ltd., Shanghai Pudong Steel & Iron Co.) (``Baoshan''), and 
Baosteel Group. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject 
merchandise from the POR, for which the importer-specific assessment 
rates are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results 45 days after the publication of this notice. See ``Preliminary 
Results of Review'' section, below. We will issue the final results no 
later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demitrios Kalogeropoulos and Trisha 
Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2623 and (202) 482-4852, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department received a timely request from two domestic 
interested parties, Nucor Corporation (``Nucor'') and ArcelorMittal 
USA, Inc. (``ArcelorMittal''), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 
for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CTL Plate 
from the PRC for four companies: Anshan, Baoshan, Baosteel Group, and 
Valin Xiangtan (collectively, ``Respondents''). On December 24, 2008, 
the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty 
administrative review (``AR'') on CTL Plate from the PRC, in which it 
initiated a review of these Respondents. See Initiation of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for 
Revocation in Part, 73 FR 79055 (December 24, 2008) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
    On January 9, 2009, Valin Xiangtan reported that it had no exports 
or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On 
January 12, 2009, Baoshan and Baosteel Group certified that they had no 
sales of subject merchandise during the POR. On February 2, 2009, 
Anshan certified that it did not have any exports, sales, or entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR. On January 22, 2009, the Department 
released CBP data for entries of the subject merchandise during the POR 
under administrative protective order (``APO'') to all interested 
parties having an APO. On March 18, 2009, ArcelorMittal withdrew its 
review request for Anshan, Baoshan, and Baosteel Group. On April 9, 
2009, the Department rescinded the November 1, 2006, through October 
31, 2007, (``2006-2007 POR'') new shipper review (``NSR CTL Plate'') of 
Valin Xiangtan pursuant to 351.214(j)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, stating that we would review Valin Xiangtan's entry in the 
current AR, because while Valin Xiangtan's sale was covered by the new 
shipper review, the entry fell within the POR of the instant AR. See 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 
15930 (April 8, 2009) (``NSR Rescission''). On April 24, 2009, the 
Department provided all parties with the opportunity to transfer 
certain information from the rescinded 2006-2007 NSR CTL Plate to the 
instant AR. On May 6, 2009, Valin Xiangtan, Nucor, and IPSCO Steel 
Inc., transferred certain documents from the NSR CTL Plate to the AR. 
On May 7, 2009, the Department issued a Sections A and D supplemental 
questionnaire to Valin Xiangtan. On May 15, 2009, Nucor and Valin 
Xiangtan submitted new factual information. On May 21, 2009, we 
requested comments on surrogate country selection. On May 22, 2009, 
Nucor requested that the Department review Valin Xiangtan's entry using 
information contemporaneous with the current AR. On May 26, 2009, Valin 
Xiangtan provided rebuttal comments to Nucor's May 15, 2009 new factual 
information submission. On June 4, 2009, Valin Xiangtan submitted 
responses to the Department's Sections A and D supplemental 
questionnaire regarding its sales during the 2006-2007 POR. On July 1, 
2009, the Department issued a separate rate supplemental questionnaire 
to Valin Xiangtan. On July 13, 2009, Valin Xiangtan submitted its 
response to the separate rate supplemental questionnaire.

Partial Rescission of 2007/2008 Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested 
the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of 
publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. 
ArcelorMittal's request was submitted within the 90-day period, and 
thus, is timely. Because ArcelorMittal's withdrawal of requests for 
review is timely and because no other party requested a review of the 
aforementioned companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we 
are rescinding this review with respect to Anshan, Baoshan, and 
Baosteel Group.

Collapsing of Affiliated Producers

    After reviewing the record, we have determined not to collapse 
Valin Xiangtan with any of its affiliates. We have determined that 
record evidence does not support a finding that any of these affiliates 
are producers of subject merchandise.\1\ Further, we have determined 
that two of Valin Xiangtan's affiliates which do produce steel do not 
own a rolling mill.\2\ Additionally, we find that VX's affiliates 
produce steel products, such as wire rod, with production processes 
that are dissimilar to Valin Xiangtan's production of the subject 
merchandise. Thus, it would require substantial retooling to build a 
rolling mill capable of producing subject merchandise. Accordingly, the 
collapsing criteria under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) are not satisfied. In 
determining whether there is a significant potential for manipulation, 
as contemplated by 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department considers the 
totality of the circumstances of the situation and may place more 
reliance on some factors than others. In the instant case, because 
Valin Xiangtan's affiliates do not produce subject merchandise and do 
not have the capability to produce subject merchandise without a 
substantial retooling, the totality of the circumstances here shows 
that there is not a significant potential for the manipulation of price 
or production. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have not 
collapsed Valin Xiangtan with its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Valin Xiangtan's supplemental submission dated June 9, 
2009, at Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2. See also Valin Xiangtan's October 17, 
2008, supplemental response at 3-9.
    \2\ See id. at 3 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR is November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008. Valin had 
only one entry during this POR, and the sale associated with that entry 
was made during the period November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. 
Accordingly, after rescinding the NSR covering the 2006-2007 period,\3\ 
we requested that interested parties transfer all information relevant 
to that sale from the record of the 2006-2007 NSR to the record of this 
2007-2008 AR. Accordingly, when we issued supplemental questionnaires 
in this AR, we requested information with respect to the 2006-2007 
period, to reflect the data already on the record with respect to the 
sale under review in the

[[Page 39923]]

administrative review. Nucor, in its May 22, 2009 submission, argued 
that the data transferred from the 2006-2007 NSR CTL Plate was based on 
older versions of the Department's questionnaire, in response to a NSR 
questionnaire, as opposed to an AR questionnaire, and based on a 
different POR. With respect to Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire, Nucor was concerned that since Valin Xiangtan does not 
already have separate rate status, the Department should not use the 
prior information to determine Valin Xiangtan's separate rate 
eligibility. In addition, for Section C of the Department's 
questionnaire, Nucor argued that since Valin Xiangtan had no further 
shipments to the United States during the current POR, it only need 
update its answers where the AR questionnaire differs from the NSR 
questionnaire. With respect to Section D, Nucor argued that the 
Department has few exceptions in its practice where a respondent may 
report factors of production (``FOP'') data from a prior period, and 
avers that the Department has historically required that respondents 
report market-economy inputs and by-product offsets for the current 
POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NSR Rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Nucor's argument that Valin Xiangtan does not 
currently have a separate rate and the information from the 2006-2007 
POR is insufficient for the Department to make a separate rate 
determination, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire 
specific to Valin Xiangtan's separate rate eligibility during the 
current POR.\4\ With respect to Section C information, because Valin 
Xiangtan certified that it had no subsequent shipments during the 
current POR, and since we find there were no material differences 
between the NSR and AR questionnaire, we determined that it was not 
necessary for Valin Xiangtan to submit revised Section C information 
for the current POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Valin Xiangtan's July 13, 2009, supplemental 
questionnaire response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Nucor's argument that the Department requires that 
respondents report current FOP data, including market-economy inputs, 
and by-product offsets, we note that the Department has in previous 
cases allowed a respondent to report prior period cost data, under 
similar circumstances. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 18204 (April 11, 2007) (``Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Romania''), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2. See also Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in 
Part, 72 FR 52079, 52081 (September 12, 2007) unchanged in Stainless 
Steel Wire Rods from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 68123 (December 4, 2007) (``Wire 
Rods from India'').
    In Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania, the 
respondent had sales during one POR that did not enter the United 
States until the POR of the next segment, and the Department found it 
appropriate to use cost data from the POR during which the sale 
occurred. Similarly, in Wire Rods from India, the Department used prior 
POR cost data because the only entry of subject merchandise during the 
POR occurred early in the POR and the merchandise was sold and shipped 
during the prior POR. We find that the case cited by Nucor, Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final 
Determination, and Preliminary Partial Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China (``Diamond Sawblades''), 70 FR 77121 (December 29, 
2005), is factually distinguishable from the instant case, Wire Rods 
from India, and Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania. In 
Diamond Sawblades, the respondent did not have period of investigation 
(``POI'') production of all types of merchandise for which it had sales 
and the Department used pre-POI FOP data valued with POI surrogate 
values (``SVs'). Here, Valin Xiangtan did not have any sales of subject 
merchandise during the current AR. In the instant case, we find that 
because Valin Xiangtan's sale occurred during the 2006-2007 POR, but 
the entry occurred at the beginning of the current POR, and Valin 
Xiangtan had no subsequent sales to the United States, consistent with 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania and Wire Rods from 
India, we are using FOP data from the 2006-2007 POR, valued with SVs 
from the 2006-2007 POR.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order include hot-rolled carbon steel 
universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces 
or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not 
exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 
millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of 
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether 
or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic 
substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in 
straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, 
plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or 
coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters 
or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and 
measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item 
numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 
7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 
7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in the order are 
flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-
section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products 
which have been ``worked after rolling'') - for example, products which 
have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the order is 
grade X-70 plate. Also excluded from the order is certain carbon cut-
to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades 
BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy 
Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope is dispositive.

Non-Market-Economy Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country.\5\ In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an 
NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering 
authority. See, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005

[[Page 39924]]

Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). No party to this proceeding 
has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value 
(``NV'') in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to 
NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3987 
(January 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy (``ME'') 
country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 
Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of 
the FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. For a detailed 
discussion of the SVs used in this proceeding, see the ``Factor 
Valuations'' section below and the Department's memorandum to the file 
entitled, ``New Shipper Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the 
Preliminary Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice 
(``Factor Valuation Memorandum''), dated August 3, 2009.
    Because we are valuing FOPs from the prior period (11/1/06-10/31/
07) (see ``Period of Review'' section above), we asked interested 
parties to submit surrogate country comments based on the list of the 
five countries determined to be economically comparable to the PRC 
during the 2006-2007 POR. See the Department's Letter to Interested 
Parties entitled ``2007-2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated May 
21, 2009. While Valin Xiangtan submitted comments on February 6, 2008 
(transferred to the record of the current AR), offering evidence of 
significant CTL steel production in Indonesia, Thailand, and India, no 
new comments on the selection of a surrogate country were submitted by 
an interested party in response to the Department's May 21, 2009, 
request for comments. As we determined for the 2006-2007 POR, we find 
that India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
the PRC; is a significant producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., CTL 
Steel Plate); and has publicly available and reliable data.\6\ 
Accordingly, we are continuing to select India as the primary surrogate 
country for purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV for 
these preliminarily results because it meets the Department's criteria 
for surrogate country selection.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Department's Memorandum to the File dated August 3, 
2009, attaching the Department's memorandum from the 2006-2007 POR 
entitled, ``New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Cut-
To-Length Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China: Selection 
of a Surrogate Country,'' dated February 11, 2008 (``Surrogate 
Country Memorandum'').
    \7\ See Surrogate Country Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value the FOPs within 20 days after 
the date of publication of the preliminary results.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this administrative review, interested parties may 
submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally will not accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can 
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and 
de facto government control over export activities. The Department 
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test 
arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). 
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government 
control.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by Valin Xiangtan supports a preliminary 
finding of absence of de jure government control based on the 
following: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with 
Valin Xiangtan's business\9\ and export licenses\10\; (2) applicable 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of the company\11\; and 
(3) formal measures by the government decentralizing control of the 
company\12\. However, notwithstanding our preliminarily finding that 
there is an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with Valin 
Xiangtan's export license, the Department is opening the record for 
additional factual information regarding the implementation of the 
export license mechanism. Parties will have 10 days from the 
publication of this notice to provide such information. Rebuttal 
information will be due 5 days later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Valin Xiangtan's supplemental submission dated July 13, 
2009 at Exhibit 1.
    \10\ See Valin Xiangtan's supplemental submission dated June 9, 
2009 at page 1 and Exhibit 1.
    \11\ See, e.g., Company Law of the People's Republic of China, 
at Valin Xiangtan's supplemental submission dated April 28, 2008 at 
Exhibit A-23.
    \12\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes

[[Page 39925]]

independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 
From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
    The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control 
is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to 
a degree of government control over export activities which would 
preclude the Department from assigning them separate rates. We 
determine for Valin Xiangtan that the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on 
record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: 
(1) Valin Xiangtan sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority\13\; (2) 
Valin Xiangtan retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses\14\; (3) Valin Xiangtan has the authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements\15\; and (4) Valin Xiangtan has autonomy 
from the government regarding the selection of management.\16\ See, 
e.g., Valin Xiangtan's July 13, 2009, supplemental response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Valin Xiangtan's supplemental submission dated April 
28, 2008, at Exhibits A-24, and A-25.
    \14\ See Valin Xiangtan's Section A response at 15.
    \15\ See Valin Xiangtan's supplemental submission dated April 
28, 200, at Exhibits A-24, and A-25.
    \16\ See Valin Xiangtan's Section A response at 13. See also 
Valin Xiangtan's supplemental submission dated April 28, 2008, at 1 
and Exhibit A-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this review by Valin Xiangtan 
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with 
respect to its exports of the merchandise under review, in accordance 
with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 
Therefore, we are preliminarily granting Valin Xiangtan a separate 
rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Valin Xiangtan's sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal 
value, we compared its U.S. sales prices to normal values, as described 
in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

    For Valin Xiangtan, we based U.S. price on export price (``EP'') in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and reliance upon 
constructed export price was not otherwise warranted by the facts on 
the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the 
exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States.

Normal Value

    We compared NV to individual EP transactions in accordance with 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 
that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) 
the merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market 
prices, third country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will 
base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the 
calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. 
Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include but are not limited 
to: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials 
employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) 
representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported by the 
respondent for materials, energy, labor and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV 
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market 
economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may 
value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly Components Div of Ill v. 
United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the 
Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
    With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and 
the market economy input values, the Department has disregarded prices 
that the Department has reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. 
The Department has reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs 
from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been 
subsidized. The Department has found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized.\17\ The Department 
is also guided by the statute's legislative history that explains that 
it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that 
such prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 
Act of 1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 
(1988) reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30763 n.6 
(June 4, 2007) unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of 
China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007) (``Coated Free Sheet''). Rather, 
the Department bases its decision on information that is available to 
it at the time it makes its determination. See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 
FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate 
Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 
24, 2008) (``PRC PET Film''). Therefore, the Department has not used 
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based 
surrogate values. Additionally, the Department disregarded prices from 
NME countries. Finally, we also excluded from the average value imports 
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country, as 
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an 
NME country or a country with general export subsidies. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 
54011 (September 13, 2005) (unchanged in the final results); China 
National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States, 293 
F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 104 
Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by Valin Xiangtan for the 2006-2007 POR. To 
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption 
rates by publicly available Indian SVs, except where noted below. In 
selecting the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and

[[Page 39926]]

contemporaneity of the data.\18\ As appropriate, we adjusted input 
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, where appropriate we added to Indian import SVs a 
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in 
accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). In those instances where we could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous with the 2006-2007 POR with which 
to value FOPs, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian 
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI''), as published in the International 
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. For a detailed 
description of all SVs used for Valin Xiangtan, see the Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using 
November 2006 through October 2007, weighted-average unit import values 
derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, as 
published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and 
Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of 
India and compiled by the World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), available at 
https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data is reported in 
rupees and dollars and is contemporaneous with the 2006-2007 POR.\19\ 
Indian SVs denominated in Indian rupees were converted to U.S. dollars 
using the applicable daily exchange rate for India for the POR. See 
https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum at Attachments 1 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Department's valuation of gas inputs in Pure 
Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 2008) 
(``Pure Magnesium''), we valued Valin Xiangtan's gas inputs using WTA 
import data of natural gas from Thailand. Additionally, we valued 
ferric mill/slag using Indonesian import data from WTA. For more 
details, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Valin Xiangtan reported that certain of its reported raw material 
inputs were sourced from an ME country and paid for in ME currencies. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from 
an ME supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant 
quantities), we use the actual price paid by respondent for those 
inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by findings of 
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.\20\ Valin Xiangtan's reported 
information demonstrates that it has both significant and insignificant 
quantities of certain raw materials purchased from ME suppliers. Where 
we found ME purchases to be of significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent 
or more), in accordance with our statement of policy as outlined in 
Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,\21\ we used the 
actual purchases of these inputs to value the inputs. Accordingly, we 
valued Valin Xiangtan's inputs using the ME prices paid for in ME 
currencies for the inputs where the total volume of the input purchased 
from all ME sources during the POR exceeds or is equal to 33 percent of 
the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the 
period.\22\ Where the quantity of the reported input purchased from ME 
suppliers was below 33 percent of the total volume of the input 
purchased from all sources during the POR, and were otherwise valid, we 
weight averaged the ME input's purchase price with the appropriate 
surrogate value for the input according to their respective shares of 
the reported total volume of purchases.\23\ Where appropriate, we added 
freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a detailed description of the 
actual values used for the ME inputs reported, see the Department's 
Memorandum to the File entitled, ``2007-2008 Administrative Review of 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of 
China: Valin Xiangtan Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,'' dated August 
3, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \21\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
    \22\ See Valin Xiangtan's May 28, 2008, supplemental D 
submission at Exhibit D-8.
    \23\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR 
at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the 2006-2007 POR with which to value factors, 
where applicable we adjusted the SVs for inflation using the WPI for 
India. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    We used Indian transport information to value the inland truck, 
rail, and waterway freight cost of the raw materials. The Department 
determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to 
be from the following website: www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. 
The logistics section of this source contains inland truck freight 
rates from four major points of origin to 25 destinations in India. The 
Department obtained inland truck freight rates updated through 
September 2008 from each point of origin to each destination and 
averaged the data accordingly. Since this value is not contemporaneous 
with the 2006-2007 POR, we deflated the rate using the WPI. See Factor 
Valuation Memorandum. The Department determined the best available 
information for valuing rail freight to be from the Indian Ministry of 
Railways (https://www.indianrailways.gov.in). To value waterway freight, 
we used pricing information from a study on inland water transportation 
in India placed on the record by Valin Xiangtan. For data that were not 
contemporaneous with the 2006-2007 POR, we adjusted the rates for 
inflation using WPI, where applicable.
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty 
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006. 
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly 
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) because it 
includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 
386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 
2003: 193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193 
for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category. Because the value 
was not contemporaneous with the 2006-2007 POR, we adjusted the rate 
for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    For direct and indirect labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008, available at https://www.trade.gov/ia/.

[[Page 39927]]

Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor 
rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied 
the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by 
the respondent. For further details on the labor calculation, see 
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Interested parties submitted financial statements for the 2007-2008 
fiscal year covering the period of April 1, 2007, through March 31, 
2008, from Essar Steel Limited (``Essar''), Tata Steel Limited's 
(``Tata''), Steel Authority of India Limited (``SAIL''), and Ispat 
Industries Limited (``Ispat''). For the preliminary results, we find 
Essar's 2007-2008 fiscal year financial statements to be the best 
available information to calculate surrogate financial ratios because 
they are complete, legible, publicly-available, contemporaneous with 
the 2006-2007 POR, from a producer of identical merchandise, and at a 
similar level of integration as Valin Xiangtan.
    It is the Department's practice to disregard financial statements 
where we have reason to suspect that the company has received 
actionable subsidies and where there is other usable data on the 
record.\24\ All four companies identified above received subsidies and 
there are no other financial statements on the record of this review. 
We determine that Essar's financial statements are the best available 
information on the record for the reasons discussed below. See, e.g., 
PRC PET Film accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. 
Specifically, we have determined that Essar's 2007-2008 fiscal year 
financial statements are contemporaneous with the 2006-2007 POR because 
they cover seven months of the 2006-2007 POR. Additionally, we have 
determined that Essar is at the same level of integration as Valin 
Xiangtan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) (``Tires''), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17A. See 
also Pure Magnesium, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, Tata and SAIL are more integrated than Valin Xiangtan 
because they are Indian steel companies that mine their own inputs, 
such as coal and iron ore. According to pages 6 and 132 of Tata's 2007-
2008 fiscal year financial statements, Tata is 100 percent self-
sufficient in its current requirement of iron ore for its Jamshedpur 
operations and 60 percent of its coal requirement from its own mines. 
With respect to SAIL, page 12 of SAIL's 2007-2008 fiscal year financial 
statements indicate that SAIL leases its mining land and that it owns 
mines for dolomite, limestone, and iron-ore. We find the level of 
vertical integration to be an important distinction among the four 
steel companies because of the effect that mining operations have on 
surrogate financial ratios. See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008), and accompanying 
Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
    Finally, although both Ispat and Essar are at the same level of 
integration as Valin Xiangtan and have similar production processes, we 
have determined to use Essar's financial statements because Essar is a 
producer of identical rather than comparable merchandise. See, e.g., 
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 6712 (February 10, 2003), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. 
Therefore, for factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used the 
public information from Essar's 2007-2008 fiscal year financial 
statements. For a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios, 
see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Valin Xiangtan has requested offsets for certain byproducts. When 
the Department considers the appropriateness of granting a by-product 
offset, the Department's practice is to determine whether the by-
product quantity is clearly produced from the quantity of FOPs reported 
and/or whether any income for the byproducts was realized by the 
company during the POR. See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. We find that 
Valin Xiangtan has appropriately reported its byproducts, and 
therefore, we have granted Valin Xiangtan's offsets for the quantities 
of these byproducts valued using Indian WTA data. Valin Xiangtan has 
represented that certain inputs are self-produced in the production of 
subject merchandise, and requests that the Department not value these 
inputs in calculating normal value, because the Department is already 
valuing the raw materials to product these inputs. Consistent with 
Department practice, we find it appropriate not to value these self-
produced inputs when reintroduced into the production of subject 
merchandise, because we have valued the raw materials to produce these 
inputs. See, e.g., Coated Free Sheet, and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. See also Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment 
Co. v. United States , 580 F. Supp. 2d 1381, (CIT, November 5, 2008) 
affirming Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (at 
4) (``We note that the Department does not value recycled scrap 
reintroduced into the same production process that produced the scrap, 
because the reintroduction of recycled scrap into the production 
process represents the re-use of purchased raw materials for which the 
Department has already accounted.'')
    Valin Xiangtan has certain materials in its production process that 
it collects and reintroduces (recycles). Valin Xiangtan requested that 
the Department not value these recycled inputs, when these inputs are 
recycled from materials that the Department has already valued in its 
normal value calculation. Because Valin Xiangtan has demonstrated the 
quantities of these materials that were recycled, and has demonstrated 
that the Department is already valuing them as initial inputs in the 
production of subject merchandise, we are not valuing them again when 
these recycled inputs are reintroduced into the production process. 
See, e.g. Coated Free Sheet at Comment 8.
    We recently stated in Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 32885-02 (July 9, 2009) 
that the Department was changing its practice of granting byproduct 
offsets for NME cases. The Department will now grant byproduct offsets 
based on total production rather than using the ``lower of'' the 
quantity of byproduct produced or sold/consumed in each POR. As this 
change in Department practice occurred shortly before these preliminary 
results, we will give Valin Xiangtan the opportunity to revise its 
reported byproduct offset claim for the final results. Moreover, the 
Department notes that, while Valin Xiangtan has requested that we (1) 
grant byproduct offsets for 6.4 Steel Scrap, 6.14 Steel Scrap, and 6.15 
Steel Scrap and (2) not value 6.3 Iron Powder and 6.13 Steel Scrap 
because these are reintroduced inputs for which the Department has 
already valued the raw materials, Valin Xiangtan did not report these 
fields in its most recently submitted FOP database. Therefore, we will 
provide

[[Page 39928]]

Valin Xiangtan with the opportunity to resubmit its FOP database to 
correct its data with respect to these items after the preliminary 
results.

Currency Conversion

    Where applicable, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, 
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 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/.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists 
for the period November 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008:

          Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Exporter                         Ad Valorem Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co. Ltd...........        0.00 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
this notice. 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 
date of 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 discussed. Issues raised 
in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case and rebuttal 
briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of 
the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    In order to allow parties time to comment on the export license 
scheme discussed above and to submit publicly-available information to 
value FOPs, case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not 
later than 45 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement 
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of this review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance 
with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we 
calculated exporter/importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rates 
for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we 
calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by 
dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by 
the total entered values associated with those transactions. For duty-
assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess 
the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for 
the subject merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit 
rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping 
margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity 
associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates 
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting 
per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. 
Where an importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rate is de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct 
CBP to assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject 
merchandise without regard to antidumping duties. We intend to instruct 
CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the 
PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results 
of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final 
results of this review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Valin Xiangtan, 
the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis no cash deposit 
will be required; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and 
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 128.59 
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which 
have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: August 3, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-19096 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S