Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 46110-46115 [E9-21594]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46110
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices
Dated: August 31, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–21614 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am]
(CORE) from the Republic of (Korea).
This review covers seven manufacturers
and/or exporters (collectively, the
respondents) of the subject
merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. (LG
Chem), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd.
(Haewon), Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.,
(Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO);
Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO)
and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd.
(POCOS) (collectively, POSCO); and
Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(Union). The period of review (POR) is
August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008.
We preliminarily determine that Union
made sales of subject merchandise at
less than normal value (NV). We
preliminarily determine that HYSCO
and POSCO have not made sales below
NV.
In addition, based on the preliminary
results for the respondents selected for
an individual review, we have
preliminarily determined a margin for
those companies that were not selected
for individual review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in the
final results of this administrative
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure (Union, POSCO, and all
others), and Christopher Hargett
(HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5973,
(202) 482–4161, and (202) 482–5075,
respectively.
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
otherwise specified by the Department.
See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who
submit argument in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. Parties
submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs
are requested to provide the Department
copies of the public version on disk.
Case and rebuttal briefs must be served
on interested parties in accordance with
19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice,
interested parties may request a public
hearing on arguments to be raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the
secretary specifies otherwise, the
hearing, if requested, will be held two
days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(b)(4),
representatives of parties to the
proceeding may request disclosure of
proprietary information under
administrative protective order no later
than 10 days after the representative’s
client or employer becomes a party to
the proceeding, but in no event later
than the date the case briefs, under 19
CFR 351.309(c)(i), are due. The
Department will publish the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief
or at a hearing.
These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Background
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–816]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the Republic
of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results
of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely
requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting the
fifteenth administrative review of the
antidumping order on corrosion–
resistant carbon steel flat products
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:32 Sep 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
On August 19, 1993, the Department
published the antidumping order on
CORE from Korea. See Antidumping
Duty Orders on Certain Cold–Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain
Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159
(August 19, 1993) (Orders on Certain
Steel from Korea). On August 1, 2008,
we published in the Federal Register
the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 73 FR 44966
(August 1, 2008). Between August 20,
2008, and September 2, 2008,
respondents and petitioners1 requested
1 Petitioners are the United States Steel
Corporation (U.S. Steel), Nucor Corporation
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a review of Dongbu, HYSCO, POSCO,
Union, Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd.
(Dongkuk), Haewon and LG Chem. The
Department initiated a review of each of
the companies for which a review was
requested. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56794
(September 30, 2008).
On December 8, 2008, the Department
selected HYSCO and Union as
mandatory respondents in this review.
See Memorandum from Christopher
Hargett, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, through James Terpstra,
Program Manager, to Melissa Skinner,
Director, Office 3, entitled ‘‘2007–2008
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Corrosion–Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea: Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review,’’ dated December 8,
2008. The Department indicated that it
would calculate a weighted–average of
the mandatory respondents’ margins to
apply to those companies not selected
for individual examination.
On July 2, 2009, we published the
notice of rescission of this antidumping
duty administrative review with respect
to Dongkuk because it had no sales of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR.2
On July 8, 2009, we reconsidered our
resources and found it practicable to
review POSCO as a voluntary
respondent. Specifically, in other
antidumping duty cases being
conducted by the office, several review
requests were withdrawn and/or
respondents have ceased participating
in the review. Moreover, POSCO
submitted a timely response to the
Department’s questionnaire. Therefore,
we selected POSCO as a voluntary
respondent in the instant review.3
At the time we issued the
questionnaire, during the most recently
completed segments of the proceeding
in which HYSCO and Union
participated,4 the Department
(Nucor), and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal Steel
USA).
2 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, In Part, 74 FR 28664 (June 17, 2009).
3 See memo from James Terpstra to Melissa
Skinner entitled ‘‘2007-2008 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Selection of POSCO as a
Voluntary Respondent,’’ dated July 8, 2009.
4 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Final Results of the Thirteenth Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 14220 (March
17, 2008) (CORE 13 Final Results); see also Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices
disregarded sales below the cost of
production (COP) that failed the cost
test. Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), we had
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales by these companies of the
foreign like product under consideration
for the determination of NV in this
review were made at prices below the
COP. We instructed HYSCO and Union
to respond to sections A–E of the initial
questionnaire,5 which we issued on
December 8, 2008. In its voluntary
response, POSCO responded to sections
A–E of the questionnaire.
On April 27, 2009, the Department
published a notice extending the time
period for issuing the preliminary
results of the fifteenth administrative
review to August 31, 2009.6
HYSCO
On February 11, 2009, HYSCO
submitted its sections A–D response to
the Department’s initial questionnaire.
HYSCO submitted its response to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaires for sections A–C on May
21, 2009, and July 23, 2009, and
submitted its response to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaire for section D on August
27, 2009. HYSCO submitted a
reconciliation of its home market and
U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009.
The Department has used the COP
database submitted on May 21, 2009, for
these preliminary results, and will take
into consideration the COP database
submitted on August 27, 2009, for the
final results.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Union
On January 14, 2009, Union submitted
its section A response to the initial
questionnaire. On February 5, 2009,
Union submitted its response to sections
B and C of the Department’s
questionnaire. On April 9, 2009, and
June 24, 2009, Union submitted its
responses to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaires for
sections A–C. Union submitted a
reconciliation of its home market and
U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009.
On August 27, 2009, Union submitted
Twelfth Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission, 72 FR 13086 (March 20, 2007) (CORE 12
Final Results).
5 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices,
Markets and Merchandise; Section B: Comparison
Market Sales; Section C: Sales to the United States;
Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed
Value; Section E: Further Manufacturing.
6 See Corrosion-resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products From the Republic of Korea: Extension of
Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
19049 (April 27, 2009).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:32 Sep 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
its response to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaire for section
D. The Department has used the COP
database submitted on February 4, 2009,
for these preliminary results, and will
take into consideration the COP
database submitted on August 27, 2009,
for the final results.
POSCO
On February 11, 2009 (the deadline
applied to HYSCO), POSCO submitted
its sections A through D response to the
initial questionnaire. On August 7,
2009, POSCO submitted its response the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaire for Section D. POSCO
submitted a reconciliation of its home
market and U.S. sales databases on
August 10, 2009.
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is
August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008.
Scope of the Order
This order covers flat–rolled carbon
steel products, of rectangular shape,
either clad, plated, or coated with
corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc,
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron–based alloys, whether or not
corrugated or painted, varnished or
coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances in addition to
the metallic coating, in coils (whether or
not in successively superimposed
layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or
greater, or in straight lengths which, if
of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters,
are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and
which measures at least 10 times the
thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75
millimeters or more are 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
7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060,
7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030,
7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091,
7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000,
7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030,
7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090,
7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,
7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,
7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000,
7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000,
7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500,
7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560,
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030,
7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090.
Included in the order are flat–rolled
products of non–rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46111
achieved subsequent to the rolling
process including products which have
been beveled or rounded at the edges
(i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked
after rolling’’). Excluded from this order
are flat–rolled steel products either
plated or coated with tin, lead,
chromium, chromium oxides, both tin
and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both
chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin–
free steel’’), whether or not painted,
varnished or coated with plastics or
other nonmetallic substances in
addition to the metallic coating. Also
excluded from this order are clad
products in straight lengths of 0.1875
inch or more in composite thickness
and of a width which exceeds 150
millimeters and measures at least twice
the thickness. Also excluded from this
order are certain clad stainless flat–
rolled products, which are three–
layered corrosion–resistant carbon steel
flat–rolled products less than 4.75
millimeters in composite thickness that
consist of a carbon steel flat–rolled
product clad on both sides with
stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
These HTSUS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions
remain dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all CORE
products produced by the respondents,
covered by the scope of the order, and
sold in the home market during the POR
to be foreign like products for the
purpose of determining appropriate
product comparisons to CORE sold in
the United States.
Where there were no sales in the
ordinary course of trade of identical
merchandise in the home market to
compare to U.S. sales, we compared
U.S. sales to the next most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed in Appendix V of
the Department’s antidumping
questionnaire. In making the product
comparisons, we matched foreign like
products based on the Appendix V
physical characteristics reported by
each respondent.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of CORE
by the respondents to the United States
were made at less than NV, we
compared the Export Price (EP) or
Constructed Export Price (CEP) to the
NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price/
Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of
the Act, we calculated monthly
weighted–average prices for NV and
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
46112
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
compared these to individual U.S.
transactions.
Export Price/Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we
used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in
accordance with sections 772(a) and (b)
of the Act. We calculated EP when the
merchandise was sold by the producer
or exporter outside of the United States
directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to
importation and when CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts
on the record. We calculated CEP for
those sales where a person in the United
States, affiliated with the foreign
exporter or acting for the account of the
exporter, made the sale to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States of the subject merchandise. We
based EP and CEP on the packed prices
and the applicable delivery terms to the
first unaffiliated customer in, or for
exportation to, the United States.
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we calculated EP for a number
of Union’s U.S. sales because these sales
were made before the date of
importation and were sales directly to
unaffiliated customers in the United
States, and because CEP methodology
was not otherwise indicated. We made
deductions for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, which included, where
appropriate, foreign inland freight to the
port, foreign brokerage, international
freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland
freight from the port to warehouse, U.S.
warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight
from the warehouse to the unaffiliated
customer, U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses, and U.S. customs duty.
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, we calculated CEP where the
record established that sales made by
HYSCO, POSCO, and Union were made
in the United States after importation.
HYSCO’s, POSCO’s, and Union’s
respective affiliates in the United States
(1) took title to the subject merchandise
and (2) invoiced and received payment
from the unaffiliated U.S. customers for
their sales of the subject merchandise to
those U.S. customers. Thus, where
appropriate, the Department determined
that these U.S. sales should be classified
as CEP transactions under section 772(b)
of the Act. Where appropriate, we made
deductions from the starting price for
foreign inland freight to the port, foreign
brokerage, international freight, marine
insurance, U.S. inland freight from the
port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse
expenses, U.S. inland freight from the
warehouse to the unaffiliated customer,
U.S. brokerage and handling expenses,
U.S. customs duty, credit expenses,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:32 Sep 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
warranty expenses, inventory carrying
costs incurred in the United States, and
other indirect selling expenses in the
United States associated with economic
activity in the United States. See
sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of
the Act. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of
the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP
profit. Where appropriate, we added
interest revenue to the gross unit price.
HYSCO’s Sales of Subject Merchandise
that were Further Manufactured and
Sold as Non–Subject Merchandise in
the United States
In its section A questionnaire
response, HYSCO requested that the
Department excuse it from reporting
information for certain POR sales of
subject merchandise imported by its
wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, HYSCO
America Company (HAC), that were
further manufactured after importation
and sold as non–subject merchandise in
the United States, claiming that
determining CEP for sales through HAC
would be unreasonably burdensome.
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that
when the value added in the United
States by an affiliated party is likely to
exceed substantially the value of the
subject merchandise, the Department
shall use one of the following prices to
determine CEP if there is a sufficient
quantity of sales to provide a reasonable
basis of comparison and the use of such
sales is appropriate: (1) the price of
identical subject merchandise sold by
the exporter or producer to an
unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of
other subject merchandise sold by the
exporter or producer to an unaffiliated
person.
The record evidence shows that the
value added by the affiliated party to the
subject merchandise after importation in
the United States was significantly
greater than the 65 percent threshold we
use in determining whether the value
added in the United States by an
affiliated party substantially exceeds the
value of the subject merchandise. See 19
CFR 351.402(c)(2). We then considered
whether there were sales of identical
subject merchandise or other subject
merchandise sold in sufficient
quantities by the exporter or producer to
an unaffiliated person that could
provide a reasonable basis of
comparison. In addition to the sales to
HAC that were further manufactured,
HYSCO also had CEP sales of similar,
but not identical, subject merchandise
to unaffiliated customers in the United
States in back–to-back transactions
through another HYSCO affiliate in the
United States, Hyundai HYSCO USA
(HHU), and EP sales through an
unaffiliated trading company.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The appropriate methodology for
determining the CEP for sales whose
value has been substantially increased
through U.S. further manufacturing
generally must be made on a case–bycase basis. In this instance, we find that
there is a reasonable quantity of sales of
subject merchandise to an unaffiliated
person for comparison purposes. See
‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai
HYSCO,’’ dated August 31, 2009, the
public version of which is on file in the
Central Record Unit, Room 1117, of the
main Department building. Further,
another reasonable method for
determining CEP for the HAC CEP sales
is not evident. Therefore, we relied on
HYSCO’s other sales of similar
merchandise to unaffiliated parties in
the United States as the basis for
calculating CEP for HYSCO’s sales
through HAC, which is consistent with
the two previous administrative reviews
of CORE from Korea.7
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the
aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the
quantity of the foreign like product sold
in the exporting country was sufficient
to permit a proper comparison with the
sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States, pursuant to section
773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)
of the Act, we based NV on the price at
which the foreign like product was first
sold for consumption in the home
market, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of
trade. We increased NV by U.S. packing
costs in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we deducted
inland freight from the plant to
distribution warehouse, warehouse
expense, inland freight from the plant/
warehouse to customer, and packing,
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B).
Additionally, we made adjustments to
NV, where appropriate, for credit and
warranty expenses, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we added interest
revenue and applied billing adjustments
to the gross unit price.
For purposes of calculating NV,
section 771(16) of the Act defines
7 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Final Results of the Fourteenth Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission, 74 FR 11082 (March
16, 2009) (CORE 14 Final Results); see also Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 51584, 51586
(September 10, 2007) (unchanged in CORE 13 Final
Results).
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices
‘‘foreign like product’’ as merchandise
which is either (1) identical or (2)
similar to the merchandise sold in the
United States. When no identical
products are sold in the home market,
the products which are most similar to
the product sold in the United States are
identified. For the non–identical or
most similar products which are
identified based on the Department’s
product matching criteria, an
adjustment is made to the NV for
differences in cost attributable to
differences in the actual physical
differences between the products sold in
the United States and the home market.
See 19 CFR 351.411 and section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined
NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade (LOT)
as the EP or CEP sales, to the extent
practicable. When there were no sales at
the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales
to comparison market sales at a different
LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to
determine whether EP or CEP sales and
NV sales were at different LOTs, we
examined stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the
chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’s–
length) customers. If the comparison
market sales are at a different LOT and
the differences affect price
comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences
between sales at different LOTs in the
country in which NV is determined, we
will make an LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP
sales, if the NV LOT is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the
CEP LOT and the data available do not
provide an appropriate basis to
determine an LOT adjustment, we will
grant a CEP offset, as provided in
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South
Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33
(November 19, 1997).
We did not make an LOT adjustment
under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because, there
was only one home market LOT for each
respondent and we were unable to
identify a pattern of consistent price
differences attributable to differences in
LOTs. See 19 CFR 351.412(d). Under 19
CFR 351.412(f), we are preliminarily
granting a CEP offset for HYSCO,
POSCO, and Union because the NV
sales for each company are at a more
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:32 Sep 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
advanced LOT than the LOT for the U.S.
CEP sales.
For a detailed description of our LOT
methodology and a summary of
company–specific LOT findings for
these preliminary results, see the
August 31, 2009, ‘‘Calculation
Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’
‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Pohang
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and
Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS)
(collectively, POSCO),’’ and
‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Union
Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’ the
public versions of which are on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of
the main Department building.
Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed
segment of the proceeding in which
HYSCO, POSCO, and Union
participated, the Department found and
disregarded sales that failed the cost test
for each of these companies. Therefore,
for this review, the Department has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales of the foreign like products
under consideration for the
determination of NV may have been
made at prices below the COP as
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of
the Act, the Department conducted a
COP investigation of sales in the home
market by HYSCO, POSCO and Union.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, the Department calculated
company–specific COPs for HYSCO,
POSCO, and Union based on the sum of
each respondent’s cost of materials and
fabrication employed in producing the
foreign like product, plus amounts for
selling, general and administrative
expenses (SG&A), and packing costs. We
relied on the COP data as submitted by
HYSCO, POSCO, and Union, except for
POSCO, where we excluded gains and
losses related to disposition and
valuation of trading securities from the
calculation of financial expense ratio.
See the August 31, 2009, ‘‘Cost of
Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results - Pohang Iron &
Steel Co., Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel
Co. Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘POSCO’’).’’
In determining whether home market
sales had been made at prices below the
COP, as required under sections
773(b)(1) of the Act, we compared the
model–specific, weighted–average COPs
to home market sales prices of the
foreign like product. For this
comparison, the Department adjusted
the reported home market sales prices
(not including value added tax (VAT))
by applying billing adjustments, adding
interest revenue, and deducting
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46113
movement charges, discounts, and
rebates, as appropriate.
To determine whether to disregard
home market sales made at prices below
the COP, the Department examined
whether such sales were made (1)
within an extended period of time, in
substantial quantities, and (2) at prices
which did not permit the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time
in the normal course of trade, in
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A)
and (B) of the Act.
Where 20 percent or more of a
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the POR were at prices less than
the COP, we determined that sales of
that model were made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of
time, in accordance with sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Because
the Department compared prices to
average COPs in the POR, the
Department has also determined that the
below–cost prices did not permit the
recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In such
cases, we disregarded the below–cost
sales in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
We tested and identified below–cost
home market sales for HYSCO, POSCO,
and Union. For each company we
disregarded individual below–cost sales
of a given product and used the
remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the
August 31, 2009, ‘‘Calculation
Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’
‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Pohang
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and
Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS)
(collectively, POSCO),’’ and
‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Union
Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’
Arm’s–Length Sales
HYSCO and POSCO also reported that
they made sales in the home market to
affiliated parties. The Department
calculates NV based on a sale to an
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that
the price to the affiliated party is
comparable to the price at which sales
are made to parties not affiliated with
the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at
arm’s length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
To test whether these sales were made
at arm’s length, we compared the
reported home market prices of sales to
affiliated and unaffiliated customers
with applied billing adjustment,
including interest revenue and net of all
movement charges, direct selling
expenses, discounts, rebates, and
packing. In accordance with the
Department’s current practice, if the
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
46114
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices
prices charged to an affiliated party
were, on average, between 98 and 102
percent of the prices charged to
unaffiliated parties for merchandise
identical or most similar to that sold to
the affiliated party, we considered the
sales to be at arm’s–length prices. See
Notice of Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative: Ninth Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR
45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of
the Ninth Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February
14, 2007)); 19 CFR 351.403(c).
Conversely, where we found that the
sales to an affiliated party did not pass
the arm’s–length test, then all sales to
that affiliated party have been excluded
from the NV calculation. See
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated
Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of
Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November
15, 2002); see also August 31, 2009,
‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai
HYSCO,’’ ‘‘Calculation Memorandum
for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.
(POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co.,
Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),’’
and ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for
Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary
results, we made currency conversions
in accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Act, based on the official exchange
rates published by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs
no later than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues
raised in the case briefs and may be
filed no later than five days after the
time limit for filing the case briefs. See
19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting
arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief
summary of the argument, and 3) a table
of authorities, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties
submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs
are requested to provide the Department
with an additional electronic copy of
the public version of any such
comments on a computer diskette. Case
and rebuttal briefs must be served on
interested parties in accordance with 19
CFR 351.303(f).
An interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
ordinarily will be held two days after
the due date of the rebuttal briefs in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1).
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, or at a hearing, if requested,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, unless extended.
See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and
19 CFR 351.213(h).
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of the final results
of this administrative review, the
Preliminary Results of the Review
Department shall determine, and CBP
As a result of this review, we
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
preliminarily find that the following
appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR
weighted–average dumping margins
351.212(b)(1), the Department will
exist:
calculate importer–specific assessment
rates for each respondent based on the
Manufacturer/Exporter
Percent Margin
ratio of the total amount of antidumping
HYSCO .........................
0.43 (de minimis) duties calculated for the examined sales
POSCO .........................
0.16 (de minimis) to the total entered value of those sales.
Union ............................
3.94 Where the respondent did not report the
Review–Specific Averentered value for U.S. sales, we have
age Rate Applicable
calculated importer–specific assessment
to the Following Comrates for the merchandise in question by
8 LG Chem,
panies:
aggregating the dumping margins
Haewon, and Dongbu
3.94
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
8 This rate is based on the margins calimporter and dividing this amount by
culated for those companies that were se- the total quantity of those sales. To
lected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on ad- determine whether the duty assessment
rates were de minimis, in accordance
verse facts available.
with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
Public Comment
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–
The Department will disclose
specific ad valorem rates based on the
calculations performed within five days estimated entered value. Where the
of the date of publication of this notice
assessment rate is above de minimis, we
to the parties to this proceeding in
will instruct CBP to assess duties on all
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:32 Sep 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
entries of subject merchandise by that
importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate without regard to antidumping
duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent). The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after 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 POR
produced by the respondents subject to
this review for which the reviewed
companies did not know that the
merchandise which it sold to an
intermediary (e.g. a reseller, trading
company, or exporter) was destined for
the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate
unreviewed entries at the all–others rate
if there is no rate for the intermediary
involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see id.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of CORE from Korea
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rates for the companies listed
above will be the rates established in the
final results of this review, except if the
rate is less than 0.5 percent and,
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit
will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed
above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate published for the most recent final
results in which that manufacturer or
exporter participated; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the original less–thanfair–value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent final results for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and (4) if neither
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this or any previous
review conducted by the Department,
the cash deposit rate will be 17.70
percent, the all–others rate established
in the LTFV. See Orders on Certain
Steel from Korea. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: August 31, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–21594 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am]
Washington, DC 20581. For information
on electronic payment, contact Angela
Clark, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581,
(202) 418–5178.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General
This notice relates to fees for the
Commission’s review of the rule
enforcement programs at the registered
futures associations 1 and designated
contract markets (DCM), which are
referred to as SROs, regulated by the
Commission.
II. Schedule of Fees
Fees for the Commission’s review of
the rule enforcement programs at the
registered futures associations and
DCMs regulated by the Commission:
Entity
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
Fees for Reviews of the Rule
Enforcement Programs of Contract
Markets and Registered Futures
Associations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Establish the FY 2009 schedule
of fees.
SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees
to designated contract markets and
registered futures associations to recover
the costs incurred by the Commission in
the operation of its program of oversight
of self-regulatory organization (SRO)
rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part
1 Appendix B) (National Futures
Association (NFA), a registered futures
association, and the contract markets are
referred to as SROs). The calculation of
the fee amounts to be charged for FY
2009 is based upon an average of actual
program costs incurred during FY 2006,
2007, and 2008, as explained below.
The FY 2009 fee schedule is set forth in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Electronic payment of fees is required.
DATES: Effective Dates: The FY 2009 fees
for Commission oversight of each SRO
rule enforcement program must be paid
by each of the named SROs in the
amount specified by no later than
November 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacy Dean Yochum, Deputy Executive
Director, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, (202) 418–5157, Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:32 Sep 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
Fee amount
Chicago Board of Trade ...........
Chicago Mercantile Exchange ..
New York Mercantile Exchange
Kansas City Board of Trade .....
ICE Futures U.S. ......................
Minneapolis Grain Exchange ...
HedgeStreet ..............................
Chicago Climate Futures Exchange ..................................
U.S. Futures Exchange ............
OneChicago ..............................
National Futures Association ....
$77,371
121,071
197,535
10,127
32,683
62,449
14,375
Total ...................................
727,270
12,259
18,601
1,157
179,641
III. Background Information
A. General
The Commission recalculates the fees
charged each year with the intention of
recovering the costs of operating this
Commission program.2 All costs are
accounted for by the Commission’s
Management Accounting Structure
Codes (MASC) system, which records
each employee’s time for each pay
period. The fees are set each year based
on direct program costs, plus an
overhead factor.
B. Overhead Rate
The fees charged by the Commission
to the SROs are designed to recover
program costs, including direct labor
costs and overhead. The overhead rate
is calculated by dividing total
Commission-wide overhead direct
program labor costs into the total
amount of the Commission-wide
1 NFA
is the only registered futures association.
Section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of
1982, 7 U.S.C. 16a and 31 U.S.C. 9701. For a
broader discussion of the history of Commission
Fees, see 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987).
2 See
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46115
overhead pool. For this purpose, direct
program labor costs are the salary costs
of personnel working in all Commission
programs. Overhead costs consist
generally of the following Commissionwide costs: indirect personnel costs
(leave and benefits), rent,
communications, contract services,
utilities, equipment, and supplies. This
formula has resulted in the following
overhead rates for the most recent three
years (rounded to the nearest whole
percent): 109 percent for fiscal year
2006, 140 percent for fiscal year 2007,
and 144 percent for fiscal year 2008.
C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement
Reviews
Under the formula adopted in 1993
(58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993), which
appears at 17 CFR Part 1 Appendix B,
the Commission calculates the fee to
recover the costs of its rule enforcement
reviews and examinations, based on the
three-year average of the actual cost of
performing such reviews and
examinations at each SRO. The cost of
operation of the Commission’s SRO
oversight program varies from SRO to
SRO, according to the size and
complexity of each SRO’s program. The
three-year averaging computation
method is intended to smooth out yearto-year variations in cost. Timing of the
Commission’s reviews and
examinations may affect costs—a review
or examination may span two fiscal
years and reviews and examinations are
not conducted at each SRO each year.
Adjustments to actual costs may be
made to relieve the burden on an SRO
with a disproportionately large share of
program costs.
The Commission’s formula provides
for a reduction in the assessed fee if an
SRO has a smaller percentage of United
States industry contract volume than its
percentage of overall Commission
oversight program costs. This
adjustment reduces the costs so that, as
a percentage of total Commission SRO
oversight program costs, they are in line
with the pro rata percentage for that
SRO of United States industry-wide
contract volume.
The calculation is made as follows:
The fee required to be paid to the
Commission by each DCM is equal to
the lesser of actual costs based on the
three-year historical average of costs for
that DCM or one-half of average costs
incurred by the Commission for each
DCM for the most recent three years,
plus a pro rata share (based on average
trading volume for the most recent three
years) of the aggregate of average annual
costs of all DCMs for the most recent
three years. The formula for calculating
the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt =
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46110-46115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21594]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-816]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting the fifteenth administrative review of
the antidumping order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE) from the Republic of (Korea). This review covers seven
manufacturers and/or exporters (collectively, the respondents) of the
subject merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. (LG Chem), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd.
(Haewon), Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO);
Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd.
(POCOS) (collectively, POSCO); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(Union). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2007, through July 31,
2008. We preliminarily determine that Union made sales of subject
merchandise at less than normal value (NV). We preliminarily determine
that HYSCO and POSCO have not made sales below NV.
In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents
selected for an individual review, we have preliminarily determined a
margin for those companies that were not selected for individual
review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results
of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure (Union, POSCO, and all
others), and Christopher Hargett (HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973, (202) 482-4161, and
(202) 482-5075, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping order
on CORE from Korea. See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993) (Orders on
Certain Steel from Korea). On August 1, 2008, we published in the
Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 73 FR 44966 (August 1, 2008). Between August 20, 2008, and
September 2, 2008, respondents and petitioners\1\ requested a review of
Dongbu, HYSCO, POSCO, Union, Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk),
Haewon and LG Chem. The Department initiated a review of each of the
companies for which a review was requested. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56794 (September 30, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation (U.S.
Steel), Nucor Corporation (Nucor), and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc.
(Mittal Steel USA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 8, 2008, the Department selected HYSCO and Union as
mandatory respondents in this review. See Memorandum from Christopher
Hargett, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through James
Terpstra, Program Manager, to Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3,
entitled ``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated December
8, 2008. The Department indicated that it would calculate a weighted-
average of the mandatory respondents' margins to apply to those
companies not selected for individual examination.
On July 2, 2009, we published the notice of rescission of this
antidumping duty administrative review with respect to Dongkuk because
it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, In Part, 74 FR 28664 (June 17, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2009, we reconsidered our resources and found it
practicable to review POSCO as a voluntary respondent. Specifically, in
other antidumping duty cases being conducted by the office, several
review requests were withdrawn and/or respondents have ceased
participating in the review. Moreover, POSCO submitted a timely
response to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we selected
POSCO as a voluntary respondent in the instant review.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See memo from James Terpstra to Melissa Skinner entitled
``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea: Selection of POSCO as a Voluntary Respondent,'' dated July 8,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time we issued the questionnaire, during the most recently
completed segments of the proceeding in which HYSCO and Union
participated,\4\ the Department
[[Page 46111]]
disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) that failed the
cost test. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we had reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales by these companies of the foreign like
product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review
were made at prices below the COP. We instructed HYSCO and Union to
respond to sections A-E of the initial questionnaire,\5\ which we
issued on December 8, 2008. In its voluntary response, POSCO responded
to sections A-E of the questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the
Thirteenth Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 14220
(March 17, 2008) (CORE 13 Final Results); see also Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review
and Partial Rescission, 72 FR 13086 (March 20, 2007) (CORE 12 Final
Results).
\5\ Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and
Merchandise; Section B: Comparison Market Sales; Section C: Sales to
the United States; Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed
Value; Section E: Further Manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fifteenth
administrative review to August 31, 2009.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Corrosion-resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the
Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 19049
(April 27, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYSCO
On February 11, 2009, HYSCO submitted its sections A-D response to
the Department's initial questionnaire. HYSCO submitted its response to
the Department's supplemental questionnaires for sections A-C on May
21, 2009, and July 23, 2009, and submitted its response to the
Department's supplemental questionnaire for section D on August 27,
2009. HYSCO submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S.
sales databases on August 10, 2009. The Department has used the COP
database submitted on May 21, 2009, for these preliminary results, and
will take into consideration the COP database submitted on August 27,
2009, for the final results.
Union
On January 14, 2009, Union submitted its section A response to the
initial questionnaire. On February 5, 2009, Union submitted its
response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire. On
April 9, 2009, and June 24, 2009, Union submitted its responses to the
Department's supplemental questionnaires for sections A-C. Union
submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases
on August 10, 2009. On August 27, 2009, Union submitted its response to
the Department's supplemental questionnaire for section D. The
Department has used the COP database submitted on February 4, 2009, for
these preliminary results, and will take into consideration the COP
database submitted on August 27, 2009, for the final results.
POSCO
On February 11, 2009 (the deadline applied to HYSCO), POSCO
submitted its sections A through D response to the initial
questionnaire. On August 7, 2009, POSCO submitted its response the
Department's supplemental questionnaire for Section D. POSCO submitted
a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases on August
10, 2009.
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2007, through July 31,
2008.
Scope of the Order
This order covers flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular
shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals
such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based
alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic
coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers)
and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if
of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch
or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of
a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are 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 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000,
7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000,
7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000,
7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,
7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500,
7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060,
and 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of
non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved
subsequent to the rolling process including products which have been
beveled or rounded at the edges (i.e., products which have been
``worked after rolling''). Excluded from this order are flat-rolled
steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium,
chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium
and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted,
varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in
addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are
clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite
thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at
least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain
clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters
in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled
product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
CORE products produced by the respondents, covered by the scope of the
order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like
products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons
to CORE sold in the United States.
Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on
the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V
physical characteristics reported by each respondent.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of CORE by the respondents to the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared the Export Price (EP) or
Constructed Export Price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export
Price/Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and
[[Page 46112]]
compared these to individual U.S. transactions.
Export Price/Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter
outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was
not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated
CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated
with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter,
made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices
and the applicable delivery terms to the first unaffiliated customer
in, or for exportation to, the United States.
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated EP for
a number of Union's U.S. sales because these sales were made before the
date of importation and were sales directly to unaffiliated customers
in the United States, and because CEP methodology was not otherwise
indicated. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included, where appropriate,
foreign inland freight to the port, foreign brokerage, international
freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from the port to
warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight from the
warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses, and U.S. customs duty.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP
where the record established that sales made by HYSCO, POSCO, and Union
were made in the United States after importation. HYSCO's, POSCO's, and
Union's respective affiliates in the United States (1) took title to
the subject merchandise and (2) invoiced and received payment from the
unaffiliated U.S. customers for their sales of the subject merchandise
to those U.S. customers. Thus, where appropriate, the Department
determined that these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP
transactions under section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we
made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight to
the port, foreign brokerage, international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse
expenses, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated
customer, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs duty,
credit expenses, warranty expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred
in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the United
States associated with economic activity in the United States. See
sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section
772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. Where
appropriate, we added interest revenue to the gross unit price.
HYSCO's Sales of Subject Merchandise that were Further Manufactured and
Sold as Non-Subject Merchandise in the United States
In its section A questionnaire response, HYSCO requested that the
Department excuse it from reporting information for certain POR sales
of subject merchandise imported by its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary,
HYSCO America Company (HAC), that were further manufactured after
importation and sold as non-subject merchandise in the United States,
claiming that determining CEP for sales through HAC would be
unreasonably burdensome.
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that when the value added in the
United States by an affiliated party is likely to exceed substantially
the value of the subject merchandise, the Department shall use one of
the following prices to determine CEP if there is a sufficient quantity
of sales to provide a reasonable basis of comparison and the use of
such sales is appropriate: (1) the price of identical subject
merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person;
or (2) the price of other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or
producer to an unaffiliated person.
The record evidence shows that the value added by the affiliated
party to the subject merchandise after importation in the United States
was significantly greater than the 65 percent threshold we use in
determining whether the value added in the United States by an
affiliated party substantially exceeds the value of the subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2). We then considered whether there
were sales of identical subject merchandise or other subject
merchandise sold in sufficient quantities by the exporter or producer
to an unaffiliated person that could provide a reasonable basis of
comparison. In addition to the sales to HAC that were further
manufactured, HYSCO also had CEP sales of similar, but not identical,
subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States in
back-to-back transactions through another HYSCO affiliate in the United
States, Hyundai HYSCO USA (HHU), and EP sales through an unaffiliated
trading company.
The appropriate methodology for determining the CEP for sales whose
value has been substantially increased through U.S. further
manufacturing generally must be made on a case-by-case basis. In this
instance, we find that there is a reasonable quantity of sales of
subject merchandise to an unaffiliated person for comparison purposes.
See ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,'' dated August 31,
2009, the public version of which is on file in the Central Record
Unit, Room 1117, of the main Department building. Further, another
reasonable method for determining CEP for the HAC CEP sales is not
evident. Therefore, we relied on HYSCO's other sales of similar
merchandise to unaffiliated parties in the United States as the basis
for calculating CEP for HYSCO's sales through HAC, which is consistent
with the two previous administrative reviews of CORE from Korea.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the
Fourteenth Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 74 FR 11082
(March 16, 2009) (CORE 14 Final Results); see also Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 51584, 51586
(September 10, 2007) (unchanged in CORE 13 Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the
price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption
in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade. We increased NV by U.S. packing costs in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we deducted inland freight from the plant to
distribution warehouse, warehouse expense, inland freight from the
plant/warehouse to customer, and packing, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B). Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where
appropriate, for credit and warranty expenses, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Where appropriate, we added
interest revenue and applied billing adjustments to the gross unit
price.
For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines
[[Page 46113]]
``foreign like product'' as merchandise which is either (1) identical
or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When no
identical products are sold in the home market, the products which are
most similar to the product sold in the United States are identified.
For the non-identical or most similar products which are identified
based on the Department's product matching criteria, an adjustment is
made to the NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in
the actual physical differences between the products sold in the United
States and the home market. See 19 CFR 351.411 and section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT) as the EP or CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there
were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison
market sales at a different LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether EP or CEP sales
and NV sales were at different LOTs, we examined stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers.
If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the
differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of
consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the
country in which NV is determined, we will make an LOT adjustment under
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a
more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT and the data
available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT
adjustment, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
We did not make an LOT adjustment under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because,
there was only one home market LOT for each respondent and we were
unable to identify a pattern of consistent price differences
attributable to differences in LOTs. See 19 CFR 351.412(d). Under 19
CFR 351.412(f), we are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for HYSCO,
POSCO, and Union because the NV sales for each company are at a more
advanced LOT than the LOT for the U.S. CEP sales.
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the
August 31, 2009, ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,''
``Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and
Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),'' and
``Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.'' the
public versions of which are on file in the Central Records Unit, Room
1117 of the main Department building.
Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which
HYSCO, POSCO, and Union participated, the Department found and
disregarded sales that failed the cost test for each of these
companies. Therefore, for this review, the Department has reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like products
under consideration for the determination of NV may have been made at
prices below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted
a COP investigation of sales in the home market by HYSCO, POSCO and
Union.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the Department
calculated company-specific COPs for HYSCO, POSCO, and Union based on
the sum of each respondent's cost of materials and fabrication employed
in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs. We
relied on the COP data as submitted by HYSCO, POSCO, and Union, except
for POSCO, where we excluded gains and losses related to disposition
and valuation of trading securities from the calculation of financial
expense ratio. See the August 31, 2009, ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results -
Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel Co. Ltd.
(collectively, ``POSCO'').''
In determining whether home market sales had been made at prices
below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1) of the Act, we
compared the model-specific, weighted-average COPs to home market sales
prices of the foreign like product. For this comparison, the Department
adjusted the reported home market sales prices (not including value
added tax (VAT)) by applying billing adjustments, adding interest
revenue, and deducting movement charges, discounts, and rebates, as
appropriate.
To determine whether to disregard home market sales made at prices
below the COP, the Department examined whether such sales were made (1)
within an extended period of time, in substantial quantities, and (2)
at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product
during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that
sales of that model were made in substantial quantities within an
extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C) of the Act. Because the Department compared prices to average COPs
in the POR, the Department has also determined that the below-cost
prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period
of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In such
cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for HYSCO,
POSCO, and Union. For each company we disregarded individual below-cost
sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See
the August 31, 2009, ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,''
``Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and
Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),'' and
``Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.''
Arm's-Length Sales
HYSCO and POSCO also reported that they made sales in the home
market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV based on a
sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to
the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made
to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at
arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared
the reported home market prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers with applied billing adjustment, including interest revenue
and net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts,
rebates, and packing. In accordance with the Department's current
practice, if the
[[Page 46114]]
prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and
102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for
merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated
party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices. See Notice
of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR
7011 (February 14, 2007)); 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we
found that the sales to an affiliated party did not pass the arm's-
length test, then all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded
from the NV calculation. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party
Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15,
2002); see also August 31, 2009, ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai
HYSCO,'' ``Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.
(POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively,
POSCO),'' and ``Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.''
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYSCO............................................... 0.43 (de minimis)
POSCO............................................... 0.16 (de minimis)
Union............................................... 3.94
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the 3.94
Following Companies:\8\ LG Chem, Haewon, and Dongbu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This rate is based on the margins calculated for those companies
that were selected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins
or margins based entirely on adverse facts available.
Public Comment
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication
of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in the case briefs and may
be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the
case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in
this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a
statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a
table of authorities, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further,
parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide
the Department with an additional electronic copy of the public version
of any such comments on a computer diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f).
An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due
date of the rebuttal briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1).
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review,
the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for
each respondent based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for
U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for
the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount
by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad
valorem rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without
regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate
is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after 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
POR produced by the respondents subject to this review for which the
reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise which it sold to
an intermediary (e.g. a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see id.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
CORE from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above
will be the rates established in the final results of this review,
except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis,
the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review,
or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 17.70 percent, the all-others rate established in
the LTFV. See Orders on Certain Steel from Korea. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
[[Page 46115]]
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 31, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-21594 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
