Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 4779-4783 [2010-1908]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Notices impacts on the human environment of NMFS’ authorization of incidental Level B harassment resulting from the specified activity in the specified geographic region. The NMFS has made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and, therefore, it is not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement for the issuance of an IHA to SGRLPS for this activity. A copy of the EA and the NMFS FONSI for this activity is available upon request (see ADDRESSES). A copy of the EA and the NMFS FONSI for this activity is available upon request (see ADDRESSES). Authorization As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the SGRLPS to conduct helicopter operations and restoration and maintenance work on the St. George Reef Light Station on Northwest Seal Rock in the northeast Pacific Ocean during January 27, 2010 through April 30, 2010, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: January 25, 2010. Helen M. Golde, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2010–1906 Filed 1–28–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–475–826] jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by an interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products from Italy. This review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Evraz Palini Bertoli S.p.A. (Palini). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2008 through January 31, 2009. The Department has preliminarily determined that Palini made U.S. sales at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:49 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review. We intend to issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the publication date of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–0665 or (202) 482– 1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 10, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain cutto-length carbon-quality steel plate products (steel plate) from Italy. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate Products From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 (February 10, 2000) (Order). On February 4, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity To Request Administrative Review’’ of the order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 6013 (February 4, 2009). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on March 2, 2009, Palini requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR.1 On March 24, 2009, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy with respect to Palini. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 12310 (March 24, 2009). On October 8, 2009, we extended the due date for the preliminary results of review by 86 days to January 25, 2010. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon1 The notice of ‘‘Opportunity To Request Administrative Review’’ stated that all requests for a review must be submitted no later than the last day of February 2009, or the next business day if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or any other day when the Department is closed. Because February 28, 2009 fell on the weekend, Palini submitted its request for an administrative review on Monday, March 2, 2009. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4779 Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 53215 (October 16, 2009). The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hotrolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular crosssection where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within the scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in the scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1 4780 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasionresistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products described by the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section above produced and sold by Palini in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to weightedaverage comparison-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the cost-of-production (COP) test of the identical product during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like product VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:49 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order of importance: Whether painted, quality, specification/grade, heat treatment, thickness, width, patterns in relief, and descaling. Date of Sale Although the Department normally uses the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer’s or exporter’s records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, the Department’s regulations provide that the Department may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale (e.g., price and quantity). See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090–92 (CIT 2001). In this case, the information on the record indicates that the material terms of sale were finalized at the time of the confirmation of the purchase order. Palini asserted that the invoice date better reflects the date of sale because the material terms of sale were subject to change and, in fact, did change when Palini’s affiliated trading company and its unaffiliated U.S. customer agreed to a price adjustment. Accordingly, Palini reported the invoice date as the date of sale in its U.S. sales list. We examined the information on the record and found that the material terms of U.S. sales did not change between the date of the purchase-order confirmation and the date of commercial invoices and that the price adjustment to which Palini refers is a post-sale adjustment because it occurred after the invoices were issued and the product was shipped. See Palini’s June 3, 2009, questionnaire response at Exhibit A–8 and its August 14, 2009, supplemental questionnaire at page 4 and Exhibit 5. As the information on the record indicates that the material terms of sale (e.g., price and quantity) were not subject to change after the date of the purchase-order confirmation we preliminarily determine that this date better reflects the date on which the producer/exporter established and formalized the material terms of sale. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results of review, we have used the date of the purchase-order confirmation as the date of sale for Palini’s U.S. sales. See memorandum from Dmitry Vladimirov to the File, ‘‘Administrative Review of Certain Cutto-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Italy: Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for Evraz Palini Bertoli S.p.A.,’’ dated concurrently with PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 this notice (Palini Analysis Memorandum), for additional information. Fair-Value Comparison To determine whether Palini’s sales of the subject merchandise from Italy to the United States were at prices below normal value, we compared the export price to the normal value as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export price of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade. In its questionnaire response, Palini stated that the home-market sales, home-market price adjustments, and cost information were reported on the basis of actual weight whereas the U.S. sales and U.S. price adjustments were reported on the basis of theoretical weight. It is our practice to make all price comparisons using the same weight basis. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999). In Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 25 CIT 1405, 1406 (CIT 2001), and Persico Pizzamiglio, S.A. v. United States, 18 CIT 299, 302 (CIT 1994), the courts upheld the necessity of the conversion to the consistent weight basis in order to enable proper price comparisons. Further, the objective of comparing export price and normal value on a consistent weight basis does not dictate the preference of converting certain information reported on the basis of actual weight to theoretical weight in lieu of converting certain information reported on the basis of theoretical weight to the actual weight. See LightWalled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 69 FR 53677, 53681 (September 2, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16. Accordingly, we converted the U.S. sales and price adjustments that were reported on the basis of theoretical weight to an actualweight basis. See the Palini Analysis Memorandum for additional information. Export Price The Department based the price of Palini’s U.S. sales of subject merchandise on export price as defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold, before E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Notices importation, by a third country-based seller affiliated with the producer to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We calculated export price based on the packed, delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions to the starting price for billing adjustments and, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, movement expenses. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Normal Value A. Universe of Sales In its questionnaire responses, Palini reported that, in the normal course of business, it identifies certain sales as having a final destination outside Italy. Palini reported such sales as homemarket sales. Palini asserted in its questionnaire responses that the sales in question were made to Italian customers, delivered within Italy, and Palini does not know the final destination for these sales except that they are to be exported. Where a respondent has no knowledge as to the destination of merchandise, except that it is for export, the Department classifies such sales as export sales and excludes them from the home-market sales database. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45393, 45396 (August 5, 2008) (Coils from Taiwan), unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 74704 (December 9, 2008). Further, in Coils from Taiwan we stated that, in Tung Mung Dev. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 25 CIT 752, 783 (CIT 2001), the court, quoting INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 251 (CIT 1997), found that sales should be reported as home-market sales if the producer ‘‘knew or should have known that the merchandise it sold was for home consumption based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the sales.’’ Based on Palini’s knowledge at the time of sale that the sales in question were destined for export, notwithstanding its lack of knowledge of the specific export destination, we have preliminarily determined that the sales in question were not for consumption in the home market. Therefore, we have excluded these sales from Palini’s home-market sales database for these preliminary results of review. See the Palini Analysis Memorandum for additional information. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:49 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 B. Home-Market Viability In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of steel plate in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value, we compared the volume of the respondent’s home-market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Palini’s quantity of sales in the home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities sold in the comparison market (i.e., Italy) and to the United States and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we preliminarily determine that the quantity of the foreign like product sold by the respondent 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. Thus, we determine that Palini’s home market was viable during the POR. Id. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. C. Cost-of-Production Analysis In the less-than-fair-value investigation the Department determined that Palini sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and, as a result, excluded such sales from the calculation of normal value. See Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-ToLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy, 64 FR 41213 (July 29, 1999), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Italy, 64 FR 73234 (December 29, 1999).2 Therefore, in this review, we 2 We made a facts-available determination with an adverse inference in the most recently concluded administrative review (i.e., the 2004–2005 review). See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 11178 (March 6, 2006), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Final PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4781 have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Palini’s sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value may have been made at prices below COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of Palini’s sales in the comparison market. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials, fabrication, and labor employed in producing the foreign like product plus the amounts for the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the comparison-market sales and COP information provided by Palini in its supplemental questionnaire responses. We recalculated Palini’s financial expenses by including the net value of foreign-exchange losses, consistent with our practice, as this better reflects the results of Palini’s foreign-exchange management. See, e.g., Silicomanganese From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 13813 (March 24, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14. See the Palini Analysis Memorandum for additional information. 2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether comparisonmarket sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported comparison-market prices less, where applicable, any billing adjustments, movement charges, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of Palini’s sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 39299 (July 12, 2006). E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1 4782 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of Palini’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weightedaverage COPs for the POR, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In this case, we found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Palini’s home-market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices We based normal value for Palini on packed, ex-works or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made an adjustment to the starting price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses, limited to inland freight, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal value under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling expenses incurred for U.S. sales to offset home-market commissions. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). We made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We also deducted home-market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. When possible, we calculated normal value at the same level of trade as the export price. See below. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine normal value VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:49 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the export price. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), the normal-value level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For export price sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales in the U.S. market, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether comparisonmarket sales are at a different level of trade than export-price sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and the comparisonmarket sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-oftrade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In this review, we obtained information from Palini regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported home-market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities Palini (or, where applicable, its affiliate(s)) performed for each channel of distribution. During the POR, Palini reported that it sold steel plate in the home market to end-users and service centers. We found that the selling activities associated with these channels of distribution did not differ significantly.3 Specifically, we found that the provision of technical assistance and arrangement for freight delivery were the only selling activities differentiating home-market channels of distribution. Accordingly, we found that the home-market channels of distribution constituted a single level of trade. Palini reported that its export-price sales were made using one channel of distribution, sales by an affiliated trading company not based in the United States to U.S. trading companies/distributors. Accordingly, we found that the single export-price channel of distribution constituted a 3 Although Palini designated the provision of cash discounts and commission for one homemarket channel of distribution and no provision of such services for the others, we did not consider them in our level-of-trade analysis because we adjust the starting price in the comparison market for these direct selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 single level of trade. We found that the export-price level of trade was similar to the home-market level of trade in terms of selling activities. Specifically, we found that technical assistance and the arrangement for freight delivery were the only two selling functions Palini provided for both levels of trade. Accordingly, we considered the exportprice level of trade to be similar to the home-market level of trade and not at a less advanced stage of distribution than the home-market level of trade. Therefore, we matched export-price sales to sales at the same level of trade in the home market. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Currency Conversion Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 17.75 percent exists for Palini for the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. Disclosure and Public Comment We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Notices established in the Order. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for these preliminary results of review. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for the importer. We will instruct CBP to assess the importerspecific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of Antidumping Duties). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Palini for which Palini did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of merchandise produced by Palini 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 Assessment of Antidumping Duties. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of steel plate from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for Palini will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the lessthan-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 7.85 percent, the all-others rate VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:49 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 220001 Dated: January 25, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2010–1908 Filed 1–28–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Consistency Appeal by Villa Marina Yacht Harbour, Inc. AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (Commerce). ACTION: Notice of stay—closure of administrative appeal decision record. 4783 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart H. The appeal is taken from an objection by Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB) to Villa Marina’s consistency certification for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for a marina expansion in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. Notice of this appeal was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2009. See 74 FR 42,650. Under the CZMA, the Secretary must close the decision record in an appeal 160 days after the notice of appeal is published in the Federal Register. 16 U.S.C. 1465. The CZMA, however, authorizes the Secretary to stay closing of the decision record for up to 60 days when the Secretary determines it necessary to receive, on an expedited basis, any supplemental information specifically requested by the Secretary to complete consistency review. 16 U.S.C. 1465(b)(3). The decision record currently is scheduled to close on February 1, 2010. After reviewing the decision record developed to date, the Secretary has requested supplemental and clarifying information. In order to allow receipt of this information, the Secretary hereby stays closure of the decision record until April 2, 2010. Additional information on this appeal is available on the following Web site: http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm; and during business hours, at the NOAA, Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services. Dated: January 25, 2010. Joel La Bissonniere, Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services, NOAA. This announcement provides notice that the Secretary of Commerce has stayed, for a period of 60 days, closure of the decision record in an administrative appeal filed by Villa Marina Yacht Harbour, Inc. (Villa Marina). [FR Doc. 2010–1802 Filed 1–28–10; 8:45 am] DATES: The decision record for the Villa Marina Federal Consistency Appeal will now close on April 2, 2010. ADDRESSES: NOAA, Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services, 1305 EastWest Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gladys P. Miles, Attorney-Advisor, NOAA, Office of the General Counsel, 301–713–7384 or at gcos.inquiries@noaa.gov. Procurement List; Proposed Additions SUMMARY: On July 24, 2009, Villa Marina filed a notice of an appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 BILLING CODE P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed Additions to the Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE: 3/1/2010. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely E:\FR\FM\29JAN1.SGM 29JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4779-4783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-826]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From 
Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by an interested party, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-
quality steel plate products from Italy. This review covers one 
producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Evraz Palini Bertoli 
S.p.A. (Palini). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2008 through 
January 31, 2009.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that Palini made U.S. 
sales at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results of review. We intend to issue the 
final results of review no later than 120 days from the publication 
date of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
0665 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 10, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-
quality steel plate products (steel plate) from Italy. See Notice of 
Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 
Plate Products From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the 
Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585 (February 10, 2000) (Order). On February 
4, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the order. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 6013 
(February 4, 2009).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on March 2, 2009, Palini 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its 
sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United States during 
the POR.\1\ On March 24, 2009, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
steel plate from Italy with respect to Palini. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests 
for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 12310 (March 24, 2009). On October 8, 
2009, we extended the due date for the preliminary results of review by 
86 days to January 25, 2010. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 
Steel Plate Products From Italy: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
53215 (October 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The notice of ``Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review'' stated that all requests for a review must be submitted no 
later than the last day of February 2009, or the next business day 
if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or any other 
day when the Department is closed. Because February 28, 2009 fell on 
the weekend, Palini submitted its request for an administrative 
review on Monday, March 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-
rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-
rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 
width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or 
actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in 
coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality 
steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual 
thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and 
measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not 
in coils). Steel products included in the scope of the order are of 
rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and of rectangular or 
non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section 
is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which 
have been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have 
been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the 
noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished, or coated 
with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within the 
scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high 
strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels 
with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, 
niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products included in 
the scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) 
the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of 
the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by 
weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 
percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of 
aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 
0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of 
tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 
0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15

[[Page 4780]]

percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical 
description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or 
exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the 
order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products 
are specifically excluded from the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or 
coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with 
plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI 
grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and 
A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels 
(i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, 
A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball 
bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or 
silicon electric steel.
    Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under 
subheadings 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 
7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 
7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 
7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 
and 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise 
covered by the order is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products described by the ``Scope of the Order'' section above produced 
and sold by Palini in the comparison market during the POR to be 
foreign like product for the purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Specifically, 
in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an 
identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to 
weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales 
which passed the cost-of-production (COP) test of the identical product 
during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-
average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If 
there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we 
identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the 
most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the 
physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following 
order of importance: Whether painted, quality, specification/grade, 
heat treatment, thickness, width, patterns in relief, and descaling.

Date of Sale

    Although the Department normally uses the date of invoice, as 
recorded in the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary 
course of business, as the date of sale, the Department's regulations 
provide that the Department may use a date other than the date of 
invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better 
reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the 
material terms of sale (e.g., price and quantity). See 19 CFR 
351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 
132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-92 (CIT 2001). In this case, the information 
on the record indicates that the material terms of sale were finalized 
at the time of the confirmation of the purchase order. Palini asserted 
that the invoice date better reflects the date of sale because the 
material terms of sale were subject to change and, in fact, did change 
when Palini's affiliated trading company and its unaffiliated U.S. 
customer agreed to a price adjustment. Accordingly, Palini reported the 
invoice date as the date of sale in its U.S. sales list.
    We examined the information on the record and found that the 
material terms of U.S. sales did not change between the date of the 
purchase-order confirmation and the date of commercial invoices and 
that the price adjustment to which Palini refers is a post-sale 
adjustment because it occurred after the invoices were issued and the 
product was shipped. See Palini's June 3, 2009, questionnaire response 
at Exhibit A-8 and its August 14, 2009, supplemental questionnaire at 
page 4 and Exhibit 5. As the information on the record indicates that 
the material terms of sale (e.g., price and quantity) were not subject 
to change after the date of the purchase-order confirmation we 
preliminarily determine that this date better reflects the date on 
which the producer/exporter established and formalized the material 
terms of sale. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results of 
review, we have used the date of the purchase-order confirmation as the 
date of sale for Palini's U.S. sales. See memorandum from Dmitry 
Vladimirov to the File, ``Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Italy: Preliminary 
Results Analysis Memorandum for Evraz Palini Bertoli S.p.A.,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice (Palini Analysis Memorandum), for 
additional information.

Fair-Value Comparison

    To determine whether Palini's sales of the subject merchandise from 
Italy to the United States were at prices below normal value, we 
compared the export price to the normal value as described in the 
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
export price of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-
average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales 
made in the ordinary course of trade.
    In its questionnaire response, Palini stated that the home-market 
sales, home-market price adjustments, and cost information were 
reported on the basis of actual weight whereas the U.S. sales and U.S. 
price adjustments were reported on the basis of theoretical weight. It 
is our practice to make all price comparisons using the same weight 
basis. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Japan, 
64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999). In Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 25 
CIT 1405, 1406 (CIT 2001), and Persico Pizzamiglio, S.A. v. United 
States, 18 CIT 299, 302 (CIT 1994), the courts upheld the necessity of 
the conversion to the consistent weight basis in order to enable proper 
price comparisons. Further, the objective of comparing export price and 
normal value on a consistent weight basis does not dictate the 
preference of converting certain information reported on the basis of 
actual weight to theoretical weight in lieu of converting certain 
information reported on the basis of theoretical weight to the actual 
weight. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 69 FR 53677, 
53681 (September 2, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 16. Accordingly, we converted the U.S. sales and 
price adjustments that were reported on the basis of theoretical weight 
to an actual-weight basis. See the Palini Analysis Memorandum for 
additional information.

Export Price

    The Department based the price of Palini's U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise on export price as defined in section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold, before

[[Page 4781]]

importation, by a third country-based seller affiliated with the 
producer to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We calculated 
export price based on the packed, delivered price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made 
deductions to the starting price for billing adjustments and, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, movement expenses.

Normal Value

A. Universe of Sales

    In its questionnaire responses, Palini reported that, in the normal 
course of business, it identifies certain sales as having a final 
destination outside Italy. Palini reported such sales as home-market 
sales. Palini asserted in its questionnaire responses that the sales in 
question were made to Italian customers, delivered within Italy, and 
Palini does not know the final destination for these sales except that 
they are to be exported. Where a respondent has no knowledge as to the 
destination of merchandise, except that it is for export, the 
Department classifies such sales as export sales and excludes them from 
the home-market sales database. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission in 
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 45393, 45396 
(August 5, 2008) (Coils from Taiwan), unchanged in Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in 
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 74704 (December 
9, 2008). Further, in Coils from Taiwan we stated that, in Tung Mung 
Dev. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 25 CIT 752, 783 (CIT 2001), the court, 
quoting INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 251 
(CIT 1997), found that sales should be reported as home-market sales if 
the producer ``knew or should have known that the merchandise it sold 
was for home consumption based upon the particular facts and 
circumstances surrounding the sales.''
    Based on Palini's knowledge at the time of sale that the sales in 
question were destined for export, notwithstanding its lack of 
knowledge of the specific export destination, we have preliminarily 
determined that the sales in question were not for consumption in the 
home market. Therefore, we have excluded these sales from Palini's 
home-market sales database for these preliminary results of review. See 
the Palini Analysis Memorandum for additional information.

B. Home-Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of steel plate 
in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
normal value, we compared the volume of the respondent's home-market 
sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise. Palini's quantity of sales in the home market 
was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on 
this comparison of the aggregate quantities sold in the comparison 
market (i.e., Italy) and to the United States and absent any 
information that a particular market situation in the exporting country 
did not permit a proper comparison, we preliminarily determine that the 
quantity of the foreign like product sold by the respondent 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. Thus, we determine that Palini's home 
market was viable during the POR. Id. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the 
respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first 
sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent 
practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.

C. Cost-of-Production Analysis

    In the less-than-fair-value investigation the Department determined 
that Palini sold the foreign like product at prices below the cost of 
producing the merchandise and, as a result, excluded such sales from 
the calculation of normal value. See Preliminary Determinations of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality 
Steel Plate Products From Italy, 64 FR 41213 (July 29, 1999), unchanged 
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Italy, 
64 FR 73234 (December 29, 1999).\2\ Therefore, in this review, we have 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Palini's sales of the 
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of 
normal value may have been made at prices below COP as provided by 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we have conducted a COP investigation of Palini's sales in 
the comparison market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We made a facts-available determination with an adverse 
inference in the most recently concluded administrative review 
(i.e., the 2004-2005 review). See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-
Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
11178 (March 6, 2006), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-
Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 39299 
(July 12, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials, fabrication, and labor 
employed in producing the foreign like product plus the amounts for the 
selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial 
expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the 
merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the comparison-market sales 
and COP information provided by Palini in its supplemental 
questionnaire responses. We recalculated Palini's financial expenses by 
including the net value of foreign-exchange losses, consistent with our 
practice, as this better reflects the results of Palini's foreign-
exchange management. See, e.g., Silicomanganese From Brazil: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 13813 (March 
24, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
14. See the Palini Analysis Memorandum for additional information.
2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices
    After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act, we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign 
like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to 
the reported comparison-market prices less, where applicable, any 
billing adjustments, movement charges, commissions, indirect selling 
expenses, and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of Palini's sales of a given product were at prices less than 
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales

[[Page 4782]]

were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of 
time. When 20 percent or more of Palini's sales of a given product 
during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 
(C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted- 
average COPs for the POR, we determined that these sales were at prices 
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    In this case, we found that, for certain products, more than 20 
percent of Palini's home-market sales were at prices less than the COP 
and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We based normal value for Palini on packed, ex-works or delivered 
prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made an 
adjustment to the starting price, where appropriate, for billing 
adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made deductions, 
where appropriate, for movement expenses, limited to inland freight, 
under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market 
direct selling expenses from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
to, normal value under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also 
made adjustments, when applicable, for home-market indirect selling 
expenses incurred for U.S. sales to offset home-market commissions. See 
19 CFR 351.410(e).
    We made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We also deducted home-market 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    When possible, we calculated normal value at the same level of 
trade as the export price. See below.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade as the export price. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(1), the normal-value level of trade is based on the 
starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when normal 
value is based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales 
from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For export price sales, 
the U.S. level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales in 
the U.S. market, which is usually from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different 
level of trade than export-price sales, we examine stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different level 
of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested 
in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which 
normal value is based and the comparison-market sales at the level of 
trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment 
under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In this review, we obtained information from Palini regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making its reported home-market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities Palini (or, 
where applicable, its affiliate(s)) performed for each channel of 
distribution.
    During the POR, Palini reported that it sold steel plate in the 
home market to end-users and service centers. We found that the selling 
activities associated with these channels of distribution did not 
differ significantly.\3\ Specifically, we found that the provision of 
technical assistance and arrangement for freight delivery were the only 
selling activities differentiating home-market channels of 
distribution. Accordingly, we found that the home-market channels of 
distribution constituted a single level of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although Palini designated the provision of cash discounts 
and commission for one home-market channel of distribution and no 
provision of such services for the others, we did not consider them 
in our level-of-trade analysis because we adjust the starting price 
in the comparison market for these direct selling expenses pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Palini reported that its export-price sales were made using one 
channel of distribution, sales by an affiliated trading company not 
based in the United States to U.S. trading companies/distributors. 
Accordingly, we found that the single export-price channel of 
distribution constituted a single level of trade. We found that the 
export-price level of trade was similar to the home-market level of 
trade in terms of selling activities. Specifically, we found that 
technical assistance and the arrangement for freight delivery were the 
only two selling functions Palini provided for both levels of trade. 
Accordingly, we considered the export-price level of trade to be 
similar to the home-market level of trade and not at a less advanced 
stage of distribution than the home-market level of trade. Therefore, 
we matched export-price sales to sales at the same level of trade in 
the home market. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, we converted amounts expressed in 
foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales, as certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
weighted-average dumping margin of 17.75 percent exists for Palini for 
the period February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing is 
requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing 
schedule.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed 
by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Interested parties may file 
rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The 
Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days 
after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the 
issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities 
cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments 
provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of 
the public version of such comments.
    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within

[[Page 4783]]

120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal 
Register.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
for these preliminary results of review. We divided the total dumping 
margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those 
reviewed sales for the importer. We will instruct CBP to assess the 
importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of 
subject merchandise made by the relevant importer during the POR. See 
19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends to issue instructions to CBP 
15 days after the publication of the final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by Palini for which Palini 
did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of 
merchandise produced by Palini 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 Assessment of Antidumping 
Duties.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of steel plate from Italy entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate 
for Palini will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-
fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 7.85 
percent, the all-others rate established in the Order. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

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

    Dated: January 25, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-1908 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P