Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57648-57653 [E9-26943]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57648
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Notices
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all non–
privileged and non–proprietary
information relating to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC
access to all privileged and business
proprietary information in our files,
provided the ITC confirms that it will
not disclose such information, either
publicly or under an administrative
protective order, without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2)
of the Act, if our final determination is
affirmative, the ITC will make its final
determination within 45 days after the
Department makes its final
determination.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure and Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to the parties the calculations for this
preliminary determination within five
days of its announcement. Case briefs
for this investigation must be submitted
no later than one week after the
issuance of the last verification report.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c) (for a further
discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal
briefs, which must be limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, must be filed
within five days after the deadline for
submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). A list of authorities relied
upon, a table of contents, and an
executive summary of issues should
accompany any briefs submitted to the
Department. Executive summaries
should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.310(c), we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
this preliminary determination.
Individuals who wish to request a
hearing must submit a written request
within 30 days of the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register to the
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230. Parties will be notified of the
schedule for the hearing and parties
should confirm the time, date, and place
of the hearing 48 hours before the
scheduled time. Requests for a public
hearing should contain: (1) party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
to the extent practicable, an
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:52 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
identification of the arguments to be
raised at the hearing.
This determination is issued and
published pursuant to sections 703(f)
and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: November 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–26947 Filed 11–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–274–804)
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod From Trinidad and Tobago;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: On November 24, 2008, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire
rod) from Trinidad and Tobago for the
period of review (POR) October 1, 2007,
through September 30, 2008.
We preliminarily determine that
during the POR, ArcelorMittal Point
Lisas Limited, and its affiliate
ArcelorMittal International America
LLC (collectively, AMPL) made sales of
subject merchandise at less than normal
value (NV). If these preliminary results
are adopted in the final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
The Department will issue the final
results within 120 days after publication
of the preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure or Jolanta Lawska, 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 or (202) 482–
8362, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
antidumping duty order on wire rod
from Trinidad and Tobago; see Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova,
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67
FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Wire Rod
Orders). On October 1, 2008, the
Department published in the Federal
Register the Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 73
FR 57056 (October 1, 2008).
On October 31, 2008, we received
timely request for review from
petitioners,1 and AMPL, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On
November 24, 2008, the Department
published the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review
covering the period October 1, 2007,
through September 30, 2008, naming
AMPL as the respondent. See Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR
70964 (November 24, 2008).
On December 3, 2008, we sent the
initial questionnaire covering sections A
through D to AMPL. On January 30,
2009, AMPL submitted its sections A
through C response to the Department’s
questionnaire. On February 20, 2009,
AMPL submitted its section D response
to the Department’s questionnaire. On
March 19, 2009, the Department sent to
AMPL a supplemental questionnaire for
sections A through C. We received the
response to the supplemental
questionnaire on April 16, 2009. On
April 30, 2009, petitioners submitted
comments on the April 16, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire response
from AMPL. On May 14, 2009, the
Department issued a second
supplemental section A–C
questionnaire, and on June 4, 2009,
AMPL submitted its response. The
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire for section D on June 15,
2009, and received the response on July
13, 2009. On August 4, 2009, the
Department issued a second
supplemental section D questionnaire,
and received the response on August 14,
2009.
On May 7, 2009, the Department
published a notice extending the time
period for issuing the preliminary
results of the administrative review
from July 3, 2009, to November 2, 2009.
See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod from Trinidad and Tobago:
Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
1 Petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc., Nucor Steel
Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries
Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills.
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Notices
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
21330 (May 7, 2009).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Verification
Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act,
the Department conducted verifications
of the questionnaire response submitted
by AMPL in August and September
2009. See Memorandum to The File,
‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of
ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited in the
Antidumping Review of Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and
Tobago,’’ (November 2, 2009) and
‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of
ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited and
ArcelorMittal International America
LLC in the Antidumping Review of
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod from Trinidad and Tobago,’’
(November 2, 2009). The verification
reports are available on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117
of the Department’s main building.
On October 20, 2009, the Department
received a revised home market and
U.S. market sales database based on
minor corrections submitted at
verification as well as verification
findings noted in the Memorandum to
The File, ‘‘Preliminary Sales Calculation
Memorandum for ArcelorMittal Point
Lisas Limited,’’ (November 2, 2009)
(Preliminary Sales Calculation
Memorandum), which is also available
in the CRU. On October 20, 2009, the
Department also received a revised cost
database based on minor corrections
submitted at the cost verification.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order
is certain hot–rolled products of carbon
steel and alloy steel, in coils, of
approximately round cross section, 5.00
mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in
solid cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel products
possessing the above–noted physical
characteristics and meeting the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) definitions for
(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high
nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and
(e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods.
Also excluded are (f) free machining
steel products (i.e., products that
contain by weight one or more of the
following elements: 0.03 percent or
more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of
bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur,
more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus,
more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or
more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are
1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod
and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire
rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is
defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:52 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or
more but not more than 6.0 mm in
cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an
average partial decarburization of no
more than 70 microns in depth
(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non–deformable inclusions
greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35
microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or
better using European Method NFA 04–
114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than
0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to
a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or
fewer breaks per ton, and (vii)
containing by weight the following
elements in the proportions shown: (1)
0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less
than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3)
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate,
of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006
percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not
more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium.
Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is
defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead
quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or
more but not more than 7.0 mm in
cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an
average partial decarburization of no
more than 70 microns in depth
(maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non–deformable inclusions
greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35
microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or
better using European Method NFA 04–
114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than
0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to
a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5
or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii)
containing by weight the following
elements in the proportions shown: (1)
0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less
than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,
(3) 0.040 percent or less, in the
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4)
0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5)
either not more than 0.15 percent, in the
aggregate, of copper, nickel and
chromium (if chromium is not
specified), or not more than 0.10 percent
in the aggregate of copper and nickel
and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30
percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord
quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire
bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will
be considered to be deformable if its
ratio of length (measured along the axis
– that is, the direction of rolling – of the
rod) over thickness (measured on the
same inclusion in a direction
perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is
equal to or greater than three. The size
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57649
of an inclusion for purposes of the 20
microns and 35 microns limitations is
the measurement of the largest
dimension observed on a longitudinal
section measured in a direction
perpendicular to the axis of the rod.
This measurement methodology applies
only to inclusions on certain grade 1080
tire cord quality wire rod and certain
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod
that are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
July 24, 2003.
The designation of the products as
‘‘tire cord quality’’ or ‘‘tire bead quality’’
indicates the acceptability of the
product for use in the production of tire
cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other
rubber reinforcement applications such
as hose wire. These quality designations
are presumed to indicate that these
products are being used in tire cord, tire
bead, and other rubber reinforcement
applications, and such merchandise
intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or
other rubber reinforcement applications
is not included in the scope. However,
should petitioners or other interested
parties provide a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that there exists a
pattern of importation of such products
for other than those applications, end–
use certification for the importation of
such products may be required. Under
such circumstances, only the importers
of record would normally be required to
certify the end use of the imported
merchandise.
All products meeting the physical
description of subject merchandise that
are not specifically excluded are
included in this scope.
The merchandise subject to this order
are classifiable under subheadings
7213.91.3000, 7213.91.3010,
7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015,
7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3090,
7213.91.3091, 7213.91.3092,
721.39.3093, 7213.91.4500,
7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590,
7213.91.6000, 7213.91.6010,
7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0030,
7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038,
7213.99.0090, 7227.20.000,
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020,
7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080,
7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095,
7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020,
7227.90.6085, 7227.90.6050,
7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053,
7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and
7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes,
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
57650
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Notices
the written description of the scope of
this order is dispositive.2
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), all products produced by the
respondent covered by the description
in the Scope of the Order section, above,
and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during
the POR are considered to be foreign
like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. We have
relied on eight criteria to match U.S.
sales of subject merchandise to
comparison market sales of the foreign
like product: grade range, carbon
content range, surface quality,
deoxidation, maximum total residual
content, heat treatment, diameter range,
and coating. These characteristics have
been weighted by the Department where
appropriate. Where there were no sales
of identical merchandise in the home
market made in the ordinary course of
trade 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 above.
Where there were no sales of similar
merchandise in the home market made
in the ordinary course of trade to
compare to U.S. sales, we compared
U.S. sales to constructed value (CV).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of wire
rod from Trinidad and Tobago were
made in the United States at less than
NV, we compared the export price (EP)
or constructed export price (CEP) to the
NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price
and 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
compared these to individual U.S.
transactions. In accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act, we calculated CV
when we were unable to find a
weighted–average price at a time
contemporaneous with the U.S. sales.
Export Price and 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 the United States
directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to
2 Effective July 1, 2008, CBP reclassified certain
HTSUS numbers related to the subject merchandise.
See https://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/
hts/bychapter/0810chgs.pdf.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:52 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
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
charged to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States and the
applicable terms of sale.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2)
of the Act, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for movement expenses
including inland freight, international
freight, demurrage expenses, marine
insurance, other transportation
expenses, and U.S. customs duties.
For CEP, in accordance with section
772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate,
we deducted from the starting price
those selling expenses that were
incurred in selling the subject
merchandise in the United States,
including direct selling expenses (cost
of credit). In addition, we deducted
indirect selling expenses that related to
economic activity in the United States.
These expenses include inventory
carrying costs incurred by affiliated U.S.
distributors. We also deducted from CEP
an amount for profit in accordance with
sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
To determine whether there was a
sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV, we compared AMPL’s
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of its
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because AMPL
had an aggregate volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product
that was greater than five percent of its
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, we determined
that the home market was viable.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed
segment of the proceeding in which
AMPL participated, the Department
found that the respondent made sales in
the home market at prices below the
cost of producing the merchandise and
excluded such sales from the
calculation of NV. See Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Trinidad and Tobago; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 65833
(November 5, 2008), unchanged in
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 10722
(March 12, 2009). Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
Department determined that there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that AMPL made sales of wire rod in
Trinidad and Tobago at prices below the
cost of production (COP) in this
administrative review. As a result, we
initiated a COP inquiry for AMPL.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated a weighted–
average COP based on the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product, plus amounts for
selling, general, and administrative
expenses, packing expenses, and
interest expense.
a) Based on its contention that the total
cost of manufacturing for wire rod
products increased by more than 25
percent during the POR, AMPL reported
its production costs on a quarterly basis.
In our June 15, 2009, supplemental D
questionnaire, we instructed AMPL to
provide weighted–average POR costs for
each CONNUM. We also instructed
AMPL to recalculate the quarterly costs
such that only the main input driving
the large cost changes was reported on
a quarterly basis, with all remaining cost
elements calculated on an annual
average basis. Based on our evaluation
of AMPL’s revised quarterly cost file, we
found that the change in the TOTCOM
from the lowest quarter for each
CONNUM to the highest quarter for the
same CONNUM reflected a change that
was below the 25 percent threshold.
Consequently, for the preliminary
results we used the single POR
weighted–average annual costs
consistent with the Department’s
standard practice. See Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Carbon and
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 5.
b) We disallowed AMPL’s finished
goods inventory adjustment to the
reported costs because the cost of
manufacturing of the merchandise
under consideration (i.e., wire rod) must
necessarily be derived based on the POR
costs incurred and should not take into
account the value of wire rod in
beginning inventory. See Notice of Final
Results of the Changed Circumstances
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Thailand, 74 FR 22885
(May 15, 2009), and accompanying
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Notices
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 6.
c) We adjusted the reported cost of iron
ore to reflect the amount by which the
cost of shipping services exceeded the
transfer price paid to an affiliated
supplier for the service.
d) We adjusted the general and
administrative (G&A) expense ratio by
disallowing an offset that AMPL took to
its G&A expenses for the collection of a
previously written off bad debt.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of
the Act, we compared the weighted–
average COP to the per–unit price of the
comparison market sales of the foreign
like product, to determine whether
these sales were made at prices below
the COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities, and
whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. We
determined the net comparison market
prices for the below–cost test by
subtracting from the gross unit price any
applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect
selling expenses and packing expenses
which were excluded from COP for
comparison purposes.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we did not disregard
any below–cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below–
cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ 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 such
sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial
quantities.’’ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of
the Act. Further, the sales were made
within an extended period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of
the Act, because we examined below–
cost sales occurring during the entire
POR. In such cases, because we
compared prices to POR–average costs,
we also determined that such sales were
not made at prices which would permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of this
administrative review, we disregarded
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:52 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
For certain comparisons, we based
home market prices on packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in Trinidad and
Tobago. We adjusted the starting price
for inland freight pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition,
for comparisons made to EP sales, we
made adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We
made COS adjustments by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred for
home market sales (credit expense) and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(credit directly linked to sales
transactions). No other adjustments to
NV were claimed or allowed.
When comparing U.S. sales with
comparison market sales of similar, but
not identical, merchandise, we also
made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We
based this adjustment on the difference
in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign like product and subject
merchandise, using POR–average costs.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides
that where NV cannot be based on
comparison–market sales, NV may be
based on CV. In this review, AMPL did
not have identical or similar comparison
market sales at a time contemporaneous
with certain U.S. sales. Accordingly, we
based NV for these comparisons on the
CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides
that the CV shall be based on the sum
of the cost of materials and fabrication
for the imported merchandise, plus
amounts for selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit,
and U.S. packing costs. We based SG&A
expenses and profit on the actual
amounts incurred and realized by the
respondent in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign–like
product in the ordinary course of trade
for consumption in the comparison
market, in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
We relied on the CV data submitted
by AMPL with the exception of the
adjustments as noted in the ‘‘Cost of
Production Analysis’’ section, above.
See also, Memorandum to The File,
‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results – ArcelorMittal
Point Lisas Limited and ArcelorMittal
International America LLC,’’ (November
2, 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57651
In addition, we made adjustments to
CV for differences in COS in accordance
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we
made COS adjustments by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred on
comparison market sales from, and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses to,
CV.
E. Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on
sales in the comparison market at the
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or
CEP transaction. In identifying LOTs for
EP and comparison market sales (i.e.,
NV based on home market), we consider
the starting prices before any
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider
only the selling activities reflected in
the price after the deduction of expenses
and profit under section 772(d) of the
Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v.
United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed.
Cir. 2001).
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than EP or CEP
transactions, we examine stages in the
marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated
customer. If the comparison market
sales are at a different LOT and the
difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between the sales on
which NV is based and comparison
market sales at the LOT of the export
transaction, we make an LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level
is more remote from the factory than the
CEP level and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in
the levels between NV and CEP affects
price comparability, we adjust NV
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act
(the CEP–offset provision).
In the home market, AMPL reported
sales made through one LOT
corresponding to one channel of
distribution. In the U.S. market, AMPL
reported two LOTs corresponding to
two channels of distribution. AMPL
made sales to an unaffiliated trading
company and through its U.S. affiliates.
We have determined that the sales made
by AMPL directly to U.S. customers are
EP sales and those made by AMPL’s
affiliated U.S. resellers constitute CEP
sales. Furthermore, we have found that
U.S. sales and home market sales were
made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we
did not find it necessary to make an
LOT adjustment or CEP offset. For
further explanation of our LOT analysis,
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
57652
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Notices
To determine whether the duty
assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with
Preliminary Results of Review
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
As a result of our review, we
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we
preliminarily determine that the
calculated importer (or customer)following weighted–average dumping
specific ad valorem rates by aggregating
margin exists for the period October 1,
the dumping margins calculated for all
2007, through September 30, 2008:
U.S. sales to that importer or customer
and dividing this amount by the total
Weighted–Average value of the sales to that importer (or
Producer/Manufacturer
Margin
customer). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
AMPL ............................
23.95%
greater than de minimis, and the
respondent has reported reliable entered
The Department will disclose
calculations performed within five days values, we apply the assessment rate to
the entered value of the importer’s/
of the date of publication of this notice
customer’s entries during the review
to the parties of this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An period. Where an importer (or
customer)- specific ad valorem rate is
interested party may request a hearing
greater than de minimis and we do not
within 30 days of publication of these
have reliable entered values, we
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
calculate a per–unit assessment rate by
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
aggregating the dumping duties due for
will be held 37 days after the date of
all U.S. sales to each importer (or
publication, or the first working day
customer) and dividing this amount by
thereafter, unless the Department alters
the total quantity sold to that importer
the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d).
(or customer).
Interested parties may submit case briefs
The Department clarified its
no later than 30 days after the date of
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
publication of these preliminary results
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
in the case briefs may be filed no later
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
than 35 days after the date of
clarification will apply to entries of
publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
subject merchandise during the POR
Parties who submit arguments are
produced by the respondent for which
requested to submit with the argument
it did not know its merchandise was
(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a
destined for the United States. In such
brief summary of the argument. Further, instances, we will instruct CBP to
parties submitting written comments are liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–
requested to provide the Department
others rate if there is no rate for the
with an additional copy of the public
intermediate company(ies) involved in
version of any such comments on
the transaction. For a full discussion of
diskette. The Department will issue the
this clarification, see Antidumping and
final results of this administrative
Countervailing Duty Proceedings
review, which will include the results of Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
its analysis of issues raised in any such
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
comments, or at a hearing, within 120
On November 2, 2007, consistent with
days of publication of these preliminary the Court’s decision in Timken Co. v.
results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Act.
Cir. 1990), we published a notice of a
Court’s decision not in harmony with
Assessment Rate
the final determination of injury by the
The Department shall determine and
International Trade Commission. See
CBP shall assess antidumping duties on Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Court
CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department
Decision Not in Harmony with Final
calculates an assessment rate for each
Determination of The Antidumping
importer of the subject merchandise for
Duty Investigation, 72 FR 62208
each respondent. Upon issuance of the
(November 2, 2007). This notice states
final results of this administrative
that we will suspend liquidation of
review, if any importer–specific
subject merchandise entered after July
assessment rates calculated in the final
16, 2007, pending a final and conclusive
results are above de minimis (i.e., at or
court decision. See id. Therefore,
above 0.5 percent), the Department will
liquidation for entries made during the
issue appraisement instructions directly period October 1, 2007, through
to CBP to assess antidumping duties on
September 30, 2008, is suspended
appropriate entries.
pending a final court decision in the
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
see the Preliminary Sales Calculation
Memorandum.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:52 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
case involving the ITC’s final
determination of injury.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for
AMPL, we divided the total dumping
margin by the total net value for AMPL’s
sales during the POR.
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of wire rod from Trinidad
and Tobago 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 rate for AMPL will be the
rate 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 rate 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 11.40
percent, the all–others rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod
Orders. These cash 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 increase the subsequent
assessment of the antidumping duties
by the amount of antidumping duties
reimbursed.
These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Notices
Dated: November 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–26943 Filed 11–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–822]
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
helical spring lock washers (‘‘HSLWs’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’) covering the period of review
(‘‘POR’’) October 1, 2007 through
September 30, 2008. We preliminarily
determine that sales have been made
below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by
Hangzhou Spring Washer Co., Ltd.
(‘‘HSW’’) (also known as Zhejiang
Wanxin Group Co., Ltd.). 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 all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR. The Department invites
interested parties to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 9,
2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brandon Farlander, Austin Redington or
David Layton, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–0182, (202) 482–1664, and (202)
482–0371, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the
antidumping duty order on certain
HSLWs from the PRC on October 19,
1993. The order was amended on
November 23, 1993. See Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Helical Spring Lock
Washers From the People’s Republic of
China, 58 FR 53914 (October 19, 1993),
and Amended Final Determination and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:52 Nov 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
Amended Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers
From the People’s Republic of China, 58
FR 61859 (November 23, 1993). On
October 1, 2008, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this
order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 73
FR 57056 (October 1, 2008). In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1)
and (2), on October 31, 2008,
Shakeproof Assembly Components
Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
(‘‘Shakeproof’’ or ‘‘Petitioner’’), a
domestic interested party, requested
that the Department conduct an
administrative review of HSW, a
producer and exporter of subject
merchandise.
On November 24, 2008, the
Department published the initiation of
the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on HSLWs from
the PRC covering the period October 1,
2007, through September 30, 2008. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 73 FR 70964 (November 24,
2008).
The Department issued an
antidumping duty questionnaire to
HSW on December 10, 2008. We
received the questionnaire responses
from HSW on January 14, 2009, and
February 12, 2009. We received
supplemental questionnaire responses
from HSW on July 10, 2009, September
29, 2009, October 6, 2009 and October
14, 2009.
The Department informed interested
parties that surrogate country selection
comments submitted by February 25,
2009, would be considered for the
preliminary results. See Letter to IPs:
Deadlines for Surrogate Country
Comments. Neither of the interested
parties provided comments on the
selection of a surrogate country. On
March 30, 2009, Petitioner provided
publicly available information to value
the factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’).
On June 23, 2009, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the
preliminary results of this review until
November 2, 2009. See Certain Helical
Spring Lock Washers from the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the
2007–2008 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 29669
(June 23, 2009).
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57653
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. 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
Administrative Review and Notice of
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14,
2006); Honey from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results and Final
Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
34893 (June 16, 2006); and Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006) (‘‘Sawblades’’). None of the
parties to this proceeding has contested
such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies
to NME countries.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate
Values
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 country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department if NV cannot be determined
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, the Department valued the FOPs, to
the extent possible, using the costs of
the FOPs in one or more marketeconomy countries that are at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC and are significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The Department determined that
Colombia, India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Peru and Thailand are
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development. See
Memorandum from Carole Showers,
Acting Director, Office of Policy, to
Brandon Farlander, Program Manager,
Office 1, entitled ‘‘Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Helical Spring Lock Washers’’
(‘‘HSLW’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’), dated December 22,
2008 (‘‘Policy Memo’’).
On January 16, 2009, the Department
solicited comments on its selection of
surrogate countries for this
administrative review and also invited
E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM
09NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 215 (Monday, November 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57648-57653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26943]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-274-804)
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: On November 24, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Trinidad and
Tobago for the period of review (POR) October 1, 2007, through
September 30, 2008.
We preliminarily determine that during the POR, ArcelorMittal Point
Lisas Limited, and its affiliate ArcelorMittal International America
LLC (collectively, AMPL) made sales of subject merchandise at less than
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the
final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days
after publication of the preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Jolanta Lawska, 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 or (202) 482-8362, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and
Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Wire Rod Orders).
On October 1, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register
the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR
57056 (October 1, 2008).
On October 31, 2008, we received timely request for review from
petitioners,\1\ and AMPL, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On
November 24, 2008, the Department published the notice of initiation of
this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October
1, 2007, through September 30, 2008, naming AMPL as the respondent. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 73 FR 70964 (November 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut
Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries Inc., and Rocky Mountain
Steel Mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2008, we sent the initial questionnaire covering
sections A through D to AMPL. On January 30, 2009, AMPL submitted its
sections A through C response to the Department's questionnaire. On
February 20, 2009, AMPL submitted its section D response to the
Department's questionnaire. On March 19, 2009, the Department sent to
AMPL a supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C. We received
the response to the supplemental questionnaire on April 16, 2009. On
April 30, 2009, petitioners submitted comments on the April 16, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire response from AMPL. On May 14, 2009, the
Department issued a second supplemental section A-C questionnaire, and
on June 4, 2009, AMPL submitted its response. The Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire for section D on June 15, 2009, and received
the response on July 13, 2009. On August 4, 2009, the Department issued
a second supplemental section D questionnaire, and received the
response on August 14, 2009.
On May 7, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative
review from July 3, 2009, to November 2, 2009. See Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Extension of Time Limit
for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping
[[Page 57649]]
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 21330 (May 7, 2009).
Verification
Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, the Department conducted
verifications of the questionnaire response submitted by AMPL in August
and September 2009. See Memorandum to The File, ``Verification of the
Sales Response of ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited in the Antidumping
Review of Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago,''
(November 2, 2009) and ``Verification of the Cost Response of
ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited and ArcelorMittal International
America LLC in the Antidumping Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago,'' (November 2, 2009). The
verification reports are available on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU), Room 1117 of the Department's main building.
On October 20, 2009, the Department received a revised home market
and U.S. market sales database based on minor corrections submitted at
verification as well as verification findings noted in the Memorandum
to The File, ``Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for
ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited,'' (November 2, 2009) (Preliminary
Sales Calculation Memorandum), which is also available in the CRU. On
October 20, 2009, the Department also received a revised cost database
based on minor corrections submitted at the cost verification.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid
cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products
possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for
(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball
bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also
excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that
contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent
or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more
of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent
of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord
quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod
measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional
diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than
70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no
non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable
inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation
per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v)
having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater
than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or
less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the
following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more
of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or
less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or
less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium.
Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire
bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm
in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv)
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade
1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be
deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is,
the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the
same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is
equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes
of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the
largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a
direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement
methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord
quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
July 24, 2003.
The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use
certification for the importation of such products may be required.
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this
scope.
The merchandise subject to this order are classifiable under
subheadings 7213.91.3000, 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015,
7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091, 7213.91.3092, 721.39.3093,
7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000, 7213.91.6010,
7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090,
7227.20.000, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080,
7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6085,
7227.90.6050, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059,
and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes,
[[Page 57650]]
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Effective July 1, 2008, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS
numbers related to the subject merchandise. See https://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0810chgs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), all products produced by the respondent covered by
the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold in
Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like
product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality,
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade 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 above.
Where there were no sales of similar merchandise in the home market
made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to constructed value (CV).
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago
were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export
price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in
the ``Export Price and 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 compared
these to individual U.S. transactions. In accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act, we calculated CV when we were unable to find a
weighted-average price at a time contemporaneous with the U.S. sales.
Export Price and 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 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
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the
applicable terms of sale.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland
freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance,
other transportation expenses, and U.S. customs duties.
For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit). In
addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to
economic activity in the United States. These expenses include
inventory carrying costs incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. We
also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared
AMPL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because AMPL had an
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which
AMPL participated, the Department found that the respondent made sales
in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the
merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
65833 (November 5, 2008), unchanged in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 10722 (March 12, 2009). Therefore,
pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department
determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that AMPL made sales of wire rod in Trinidad and Tobago at prices below
the cost of production (COP) in this administrative review. As a
result, we initiated a COP inquiry for AMPL.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general, and administrative expenses, packing expenses, and interest
expense.
a) Based on its contention that the total cost of manufacturing for
wire rod products increased by more than 25 percent during the POR,
AMPL reported its production costs on a quarterly basis. In our June
15, 2009, supplemental D questionnaire, we instructed AMPL to provide
weighted-average POR costs for each CONNUM. We also instructed AMPL to
recalculate the quarterly costs such that only the main input driving
the large cost changes was reported on a quarterly basis, with all
remaining cost elements calculated on an annual average basis. Based on
our evaluation of AMPL's revised quarterly cost file, we found that the
change in the TOTCOM from the lowest quarter for each CONNUM to the
highest quarter for the same CONNUM reflected a change that was below
the 25 percent threshold. Consequently, for the preliminary results we
used the single POR weighted-average annual costs consistent with the
Department's standard practice. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
b) We disallowed AMPL's finished goods inventory adjustment to the
reported costs because the cost of manufacturing of the merchandise
under consideration (i.e., wire rod) must necessarily be derived based
on the POR costs incurred and should not take into account the value of
wire rod in beginning inventory. See Notice of Final Results of the
Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 74 FR 22885 (May
15, 2009), and accompanying
[[Page 57651]]
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
c) We adjusted the reported cost of iron ore to reflect the amount by
which the cost of shipping services exceeded the transfer price paid to
an affiliated supplier for the service.
d) We adjusted the general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio by
disallowing an offset that AMPL took to its G&A expenses for the
collection of a previously written off bad debt.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' 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 such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.''
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring
during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded
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.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
For certain comparisons, we based home market prices on packed
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted
the starting price for inland freight pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP
sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home
market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(credit directly linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to
NV were claimed or allowed.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average
costs.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. In this review, AMPL
did not have identical or similar comparison market sales at a time
contemporaneous with certain U.S. sales. Accordingly, we based NV for
these comparisons on the CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that
the CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling,
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing
costs. We based SG&A expenses and profit on the actual amounts incurred
and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and
sale of the foreign-like product in the ordinary course of trade for
consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
We relied on the CV data submitted by AMPL with the exception of
the adjustments as noted in the ``Cost of Production Analysis''
section, above. See also, Memorandum to The File, ``Cost of Production
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results - ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited and ArcelorMittal
International America LLC,'' (November 2, 2009).
In addition, we made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For
comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S.
direct selling expenses to, CV.
E. Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction.
In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based
on home market), we consider the starting prices before any
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
In the home market, AMPL reported sales made through one LOT
corresponding to one channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, AMPL
reported two LOTs corresponding to two channels of distribution. AMPL
made sales to an unaffiliated trading company and through its U.S.
affiliates. We have determined that the sales made by AMPL directly to
U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by AMPL's affiliated U.S.
resellers constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have found that U.S.
sales and home market sales were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we
did not find it necessary to make an LOT adjustment or CEP offset. For
further explanation of our LOT analysis,
[[Page 57652]]
see the Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October
1, 2007, through September 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPL................................................ 23.95%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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 limited
to issues raised in the case briefs may be filed no later than 35 days
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any
such comments on diskette. 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, within
120 days of publication of these preliminary results. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rate
The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the
subject merchandise for each respondent. Upon issuance of the final
results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific
assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis
(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or
customer)- specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing
this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or
customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an
importer (or customer)- specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
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 respondent for which it did not know its
merchandise 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 intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
On November 2, 2007, consistent with the Court's decision in Timken
Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990), we published
a notice of a Court's decision not in harmony with the final
determination of injury by the International Trade Commission. See
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Determination of The
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 72 FR 62208 (November 2, 2007). This
notice states that we will suspend liquidation of subject merchandise
entered after July 16, 2007, pending a final and conclusive court
decision. See id. Therefore, liquidation for entries made during the
period October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008, is suspended
pending a final court decision in the case involving the ITC's final
determination of injury.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for AMPL, we divided the total
dumping margin by the total net value for AMPL's sales during the POR.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago 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 rate for AMPL
will be the rate 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 rate 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 11.40 percent, the all-others rate established in
the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod Orders. These cash 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 increase the
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of
antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 57653]]
Dated: November 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-26943 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
