Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of the 18th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Partial Rescission, 54891-54897 [2012-21993]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Notices
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1170–1173, 01/12/2009; correction 74
FR 3987, 01/22/2009; 75 FR 71069–
71070, 11/22/2010) as an option for the
establishment or reorganization of
zones;
Whereas, the City of Laredo, grantee
of Foreign-Trade Zone 94, submitted an
application to the Board (FTZ Docket
22–2012, filed 03/23/2012) for authority
to reorganize under the ASF with a
service area of Webb County, Texas,
within and adjacent to the Laredo
Customs and Border Protection port of
entry, FTZ 94’s existing Sites 1 through
7 would be categorized as magnet sites,
and FTZ 94’s existing Sites 8 through 11
would be categorized as usage-driven
sites;
Whereas, notice inviting public
comment was given in the Federal
Register (77 FR 19001, 03/29/2012) and
the application has been processed
pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s
regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board adopts the
findings and recommendations of the
examiner’s report, and finds that the
requirements of the FTZ Act and the
Board’s regulations are satisfied, and
that the proposal is in the public
interest;
Now, Therefore, the Board hereby
orders:
The application to reorganize FTZ 94
under the alternative site framework is
approved, subject to the FTZ Act and
the Board’s regulations, including
Section 400.13, to the Board’s standard
2,000-acre activation limit for the zone,
to a five-year ASF sunset provision for
magnet sites that would terminate
authority for Sites 2 through 7 if not
activated by August 31, 2017, and to a
three-year sunset provision for usagedriven sites that would terminate
authority for Sites 8 through 11 if no
foreign-status merchandise is admitted
for a bona fide customs purpose by
August 31, 2015.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29 day of
August 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import
Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–21995 Filed 9–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
[Order No. 1853]
[A–580–816]
Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone
149 Under Alternative Site Framework
Freeport, TX
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the Republic
of Korea: Preliminary Results of the
18th Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Partial Rescission
Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the
following Order:
Whereas, the Board adopted the
alternative site framework (ASF) (74 FR
1170–1173, 01/12/2009; correction 74
FR 3987, 01/22/2009; 75 FR 71069–
71070, 11/22/2010) as an option for the
establishment or reorganization of
zones;
Whereas, Port Freeport, grantee of
Foreign-Trade Zone 149, submitted an
application to the Board (FTZ Docket
27–2012, filed 04/02/2012) for authority
to reorganize under the ASF with a
service area of the Counties of Brazoria
and Fort Bend, Texas, within and
adjacent to the Freeport Customs and
Border Protection port of entry, FTZ
149’s existing Sites 1, 3 and 10 would
be categorized as magnet sites, and FTZ
149’s Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12
would be removed from the zone;
Whereas, notice inviting public
comment was given in the Federal
Register (77 FR 21081–21082, 04/09/
2012) and the application has been
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and
the Board’s regulations; and,
Whereas, the Board adopts the
findings and recommendations of the
examiner’s report, and finds that the
requirements of the FTZ Act and the
Board’s regulations are satisfied, and
that the proposal is in the public
interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby
orders:
The application to reorganize FTZ 149
under the alternative site framework is
approved, subject to the FTZ Act and
the Board’s regulations, including
Section 400.13, to the Board’s standard
2,000-acre activation limit for the zone,
and to a five-year ASF sunset provision
for magnet sites that would terminate
authority for Sites 3 and 10 if not
activated by August 31, 2017.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of
August 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import
Administration, Alternate Chairman ForeignTrade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–21994 Filed 9–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:45 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
54891
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely
requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting the 18th
administrative review of the
antidumping order on corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE) from the Republic of Korea 1
(Korea). This review covers seven
manufacturers and/or exporters
(collectively, the respondents) of the
subject merchandise: Dongbu Steel Co.,
Ltd., (Dongbu), Dongkuk Industries Co.,
Ltd. (Dongkuk), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd.
(Haewon), Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO),
LG Chem., Ltd. (LG Chem), LG Hausys,
Ltd. (Hausys), and Union Steel
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union).2 The
period of review (POR) is August 1,
2010, through July 31, 2011. We
preliminarily determine that Dongbu
and HYSCO have not 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.
Additionally, we are rescinding this
review with respect to POSCO because
this company has been revoked from the
antidumping duty order.3
DATES: Effective Date: September 6,
2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Robinson (Dongbu) or
Christopher Hargett (HYSCO), AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
AGENCY:
1 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocations in Part, 76 FR 61076
(October 3, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
2 The Department also initiated a review of
Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang
Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively,
POSCO), in the Initiation Notice. However, POSCO
was revoked from the order on March 12, 2012. See
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Final Results of the 2009–2010 Administrative
Review and Revocation, in Part, 77 FR 14501
(March 12, 2012) (CORE 17 Final Results).
3 Id.
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
54892
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Notices
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3797, and (202)
482–4161, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 19, 1993, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on CORE from Korea.4 On August 2,
2010, we published in the Federal
Register the Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 76
FR 45773 (August 1, 2011). On August
31, 2010, respondents and petitioners 5
requested a review of Dongbu, Dongkuk,
Haewon, Hausys, HYSCO, LG Chem,
POSCO, and Union. The Department
initiated a review of each of the
companies for which a review was
requested.6
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Selection of Respondents for Individual
Examination
On October 6, 2011, the Department
placed on the record and distributed to
all interested parties under
administrative protective order a
memorandum stating that we intend to
limit the number of companies
individually examined during this
review and attaching proprietary data to
be used for selection of companies for
individual examination in this
administrative review.7 Due to the large
number of companies in this
administrative review and the resulting
administrative burden of examining
each company for which a request was
made, the Department determined that
it would not be practicable to examine
individually all eight producers/
exporters of subject merchandise for
which a review had been initiated.8
After careful consideration of our
resources, we determined to review a
reasonable number of respondents
which account for the largest volume of
subject merchandise exported from
Korea in accordance with section
777A(c)(2) of the Act.9 On October 26,
4 See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain ColdRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Korea, 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993) (Orders on
Certain Steel from Korea).
5 Petitioners are the United States Steel
Corporation (U.S. Steel), Nucor Corporation
(Nucor), and ArcelorMittal USA LLC (ArcelorMittal
USA).
6 See Initiation Notice.
7 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Customs and
Border Patrol Data for Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review’’ (October 6, 2011).
8 Id.
9 See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director,
Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, through James
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:45 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
2011, the Department selected Dongbu
and HYSCO as mandatory respondents
in this review.10
During the most recently completed
segments of the proceeding in which
HYSCO and Dongbu participated,11 the
Department disregarded sales below the
cost of production (COP) for each of
these companies. Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), we had
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales by these companies of the
foreign like product under consideration
for the determination of NV in this
review were made at prices below the
COP. We instructed HYSCO and
Dongbu to respond to sections A
through D of the initial questionnaire,12
which we issued on October 26, 2011.
From December 2011 through August
2012, Dongbu and HYSCO submitted
timely responses to the Department’s
questionnaires.13
Union
On October 28 and November 22,
2011, Union submitted requests to be
considered a mandatory respondent by
the Department.14 On January 3, 2012,
Union submitted its section A response
to the Department’s initial
questionnaire. On January 20, 2012,
Union submitted its sections B through
D response to the Department’s initial
questionnaire. On April 10, 2012, Union
met with the Department to reiterate its
request that it be selected as a
Terpstra, Program Manager, Office 3, AD/CVD
Operations, FROM: Christopher Hargett, Senior
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 3,
AD/CVD Operations, titled ‘‘Selection of
Respondents for Individual Review’’ (October 26,
2011) (Respondent Selection Memo).
10 See Memorandum from Christopher Hargett,
Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst,
through James Terpstra, Program Manager, to
Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, entitled ‘‘18th
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the Republic of Korea: Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review,’’ dated October 26, 2010
(Respondent Selection Memo).
11 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice
of Final Results of the Sixteenth Administrative
Review, 76 FR 17381 (March 29, 2011).
12 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices,
Markets and Merchandise; Section B: Comparison
Market Sales; Section C: Sales to the United States;
Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed
Value; Section E: Further Manufacturing.
13 On August 13, 2012, Dongbu submitted a
response to the Department’s second section D
supplemental questionnaire issued on August 3,
2012, but Dongbu inadvertently omitted narrative
pages in this submission. Following the
Department’s instructions, Dongbu resubmitted a
complete response on August 14, 2012.
14 See Letter from Union to the Department
requesting to be a third mandatory respondent,
dated October 28, 2011; see also Letter from Union
to the Department requesting to be a third
mandatory respondent, dated November 22, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respondent in the instant case.15
Pursuant to the reasons stated in the
Respondent Selection Memo, the
Department maintains its decision to
select and individually review only two
mandatory respondents in the instant
review, Dongbu and HYSCO.
Although Union was not selected as a
mandatory respondent, it submitted a
voluntary response and has requested to
be treated as a voluntary respondent.16
As provided in section 782(a) of the Act,
and consistent with our findings in
Frozen Shrimp,17 we separately
addressed the issue of whether we can
examine voluntary respondents,
considering the available resources in
light of the current workload, including
the work involved in examining the two
mandatory respondents, to determine
whether examining voluntary
respondents would be unduly
burdensome or inhibit timely
completion of the review.18 For the
reasons discussed in the Union
Voluntary Respondent Memo, we
determined that given the existing
resources and the complexity of this
case, examining Union as a voluntary
respondent would be unduly
burdensome and inhibit the timely
completion of this administrative
review.19 Thus we are not examining
Union as a voluntary respondent.
On October 28, 2011, POSCO
submitted its request to be considered a
voluntary respondent by the
Department, but it withdrew its request
to participate as a voluntary respondent
for this administrative review on
November 10, 2011. As mentioned,
supra, POSCO was revoked from the
CORE Order in the CORE 17 Final
Results, thus, we are rescinding this
review with respect to POSCO.
15 See Memo to the File, ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with
Counsel for Union Steel,’’ dated April 23, 2012.
16 See Letter from Union to the Department
requesting to be a voluntary respondent, dated
October 28, 2011; see also Letters from Union
requesting to be a third mandatory respondent,
dated October 28, 2011 and November 22, 2011
(both requesting in the alternative to be considered
a voluntary respondent).
17 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Preliminary No
Shipment Determination, 77 FR 13082, 13085
(March 5, 2012) (Frozen Shrimp).
18 See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Senior
Advisor for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, from Melissa Skinner, Office Director
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, entitled ‘‘The 18th
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea: Union
Steel’s Request to be Examined as a Voluntary
Respondent,’’ dated August 30, 2012 (Union’s
Voluntary Respondent Memorandum).
19 Id.
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Notices
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is
August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011.
Scope of the Order
This order covers flat-rolled carbon
steel products, of rectangular shape,
either clad, plated, or coated with
corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc,
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron-based alloys, whether or not
corrugated or painted, varnished or
coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances in addition to
the metallic coating, in coils (whether or
not in successively superimposed
layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or
greater, or in straight lengths which, if
of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters,
are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and
which measures at least 10 times the
thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75
millimeters or more are of a width
which exceeds 150 millimeters and
measures at least twice the thickness, as
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under item numbers
7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060,
7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030,
7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091,
7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000,
7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030,
7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090,
7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,
7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,
7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000,
7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000,
7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500,
7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560,
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030,
7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090.
Included in the order are flat-rolled
products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is
achieved subsequent to the rolling
process including products which have
been beveled or rounded at the edges
(i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked
after rolling’’). Excluded from this order
are flat-rolled steel products either
plated or coated with tin, lead,
chromium, chromium oxides, both tin
and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both
chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tinfree steel’’), whether or not painted,
varnished or coated with plastics or
other nonmetallic substances in
addition to the metallic coating. Also
excluded from this order are clad
products in straight lengths of 0.1875
inch or more in composite thickness
and of a width which exceeds 150
millimeters and measures at least twice
the thickness. Also excluded from this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:45 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
order are certain clad stainless flatrolled products, which are three-layered
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75
millimeters in composite thickness that
consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled
product clad on both sides with
stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
These HTSUS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions
remain dispositive.
Rates for Respondents Not Selected for
Individual Examination
Generally, we have looked to section
735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides
instructions for calculating the allothers rate in an investigation, for
guidance when calculating the rate for
respondents not selected for individual
examination. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the
Act instructs that we do not calculate an
all-others rate using any zero or de
minimis weighted-average dumping
margins or any weighted-average
dumping margins based on total facts
available. Accordingly, the
Department’s usual practice has been to
average the rates for the selected
companies excluding rates that are zero,
de minimis, or based entirely on facts
available.20 Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the
Act also provides that, where all rates
are zero, de minimis, or based on total
facts available, we may use ‘‘any
reasonable method’’ for assigning the
rate to non-selected respondents. One
method that section 735(c)(5)(B) of the
Act contemplates as a possible method
is ‘‘averaging the estimated weighted
average dumping margins determined
for the exporters and producers
individually investigated.’’
In this review, we have calculated
weighted-average dumping margins of
zero or de minimis for both companies
selected as mandatory respondents. In
previous cases, the Department has
determined that a ‘‘reasonable method’’
to use when, as here, the rates of the
respondents selected for individual
examination are zero or de minimis is to
apply to those companies not selected
for individual examination the average
of the most recently determined rates
that are not zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available (which may
be from a prior review or new shipper
review).21 If any such non-selected
20 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United
Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews
in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008)
(AFBs 2008), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
21 See AFBs 2008, and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54893
company had its own calculated rate
that is contemporaneous with or more
recent than such prior determined rates,
however, the Department has applied
such individual rate to the non-selected
company in the review in question,
including when that rate is zero or de
minimis.22 However, all prior rates for
this proceeding were calculated using
the Department’s zeroing methodology.
The Department has stated that it will
not use its zeroing methodology in
administrative reviews with preliminary
determinations issued after April 16,
2012.23 Therefore, we will not apply any
rates calculated in prior reviews to the
non-selected companies in these
reviews. Based on this, and in
accordance with the statute and the
Department’s recent practice in AFBs
2012,24 we determine that a reasonable
method for determining the weightedaverage dumping margins for the nonselected respondents in this review is to
average the weighted-average dumping
margins calculated for the mandatory
respondents.
Targeted Dumping Allegations
On May 8 and 24, 2012, petitioners
submitted targeted dumping allegations
with regard to HYSCO and Dongbu,
respectively.
The petitioners note that they
conducted their own targeted dumping
analyses of Dongbu’s and HYSCO’s U.S.
sales using the Department’s targeted
dumping methodology as applied in
Steel Nails and modified in Wood
Flooring.25 Based on the petitioners’
own analysis, the petitioners argue that
the Department should conduct a
targeted dumping analysis and employ
average-to-transaction comparisons
22 Id.
23 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for
Reviews).
24 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
France, Germany, and Italy: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews in Part, 77 FR 33159 (June 5, 2012) (AFBs
2012).
25 See The petitioners’ Allegation of Targeted
Dumping with respect to Dongbu, dated May 24,
2012, at 3, 5–7, and (citing Certain Steel Nails from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 73 FR 33,977 (June 16, 2008) (Steel
Nails), and accompany Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 8; Multilayered Wood
Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76
FR 64318 (Oct. 18, 2011) (Wood Flooring), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4); The petitioners’ Allegation of Targeted
Dumping with respect to HYSCO, dated May 8,
2012, at 3, 5–6 (same).
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
54894
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Notices
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
without offsets, should the Department
find that the record supports its
allegation of targeted dumping.
On August 7, 2012, Dongbu submitted
its response to petitioners’ May 24,
2012, targeted dumping allegation
submitted with regard to Dongbu.
Dongbu argued that there is no statutory
authority for applying the targeted
dumping exception provided in section
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act to this
administrative review. Moreover,
Dongbu claimed that a decision to apply
the average-to-transaction methodology
with zeroing in this review would
completely undermine the recent
change to the Department’s zeroing
practice in reviews that was announced
in the Final Modification for Reviews.
Accordingly, Dongbu requested that the
Department reject petitioners’ targeted
dumping allegation and instead apply
its new monthly average-to-average
comparison methodology without
zeroing the negative comparison results
in these preliminary results.
HYSCO did not comment on the
targeted dumping allegation submitted
by the petitioners.
For purposes of these preliminary
results, the Department did not conduct
a targeted dumping analysis. In
calculating the preliminary weightedaverage dumping margin, the
Department applied the calculation
methodology adopted in the Final
Modification for Reviews.26 In
particular, the Department compared
monthly, weighted-average U.S. prices
with monthly, weighted-average normal
values, and granted offsets for negative
comparison results in the calculation of
the weighted-average dumping
margins.27 Application of this
methodology in these preliminary
results affords parties an opportunity to
meaningfully comment on the
Department’s implementation of this
recently adopted methodology in the
context of this administrative review.
The Department intends to continue to
consider, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.414(c), whether another method is
appropriate in this administrative
review in light of the parties’ prepreliminary comments and any
comments on the issue that parties may
include in their case and rebuttal briefs.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all CORE
products produced by the respondents,
meeting the description of the scope of
the order, and sold in the home market
during the POR to be foreign like
26 See
27 See
Final Modification for Reviews.
id. at 8102.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:45 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
products. As the basis for NV, we first
identified home market sales in the
ordinary course of trade of foreign like
product which was identical to the
subject merchandise sold in the United
States. Where there were no sales in the
ordinary course of trade of identical
merchandise in the home market to
compare to U.S. sales, we identified
home market sales of the most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed in Appendix V of
the Department’s antidumping
questionnaire.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of CORE
by the respondents to the United States
were made at prices less than NV, we
compared U.S. prices, based either on
the export price (EP) or the constructed
export price (CEP), to the NV, as
described in the ‘‘Export Price/
Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice. In
particular, the Department compared
monthly, weighted-average EPs or CEPs
with monthly, weighted-average normal
values, and granted offsets for negative
comparison results in the calculation of
the weighted-average dumping margin
for each respondent.28
Export Price/Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we
used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in
accordance with sections 772(a) and (b)
of the Act. We calculated EP when the
merchandise was sold by the producer
or exporter outside of the United States
directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to
importation and when CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts
on the record. We calculated CEP for
those sales where a person in the United
States, affiliated with the foreign
exporter or acting for the account of the
exporter, made the sale to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States of the subject merchandise. We
based EP and CEP on the packed prices
and the applicable delivery terms to the
first unaffiliated customer in, or for
exportation to, the United States.
For U.S. prices based on EP, we made
deductions for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, which included, where
appropriate, foreign inland freight to the
port, foreign brokerage, international
freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland
freight from the port to warehouse, U.S.
warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight
from the warehouse to the unaffiliated
customer, U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses, and U.S. customs duty.
28 See
PO 00000
Final Modification for Reviews.
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, we calculated CEP where the
record established that sales made by
HYSCO and Dongbu were made in the
United States after importation.
HYSCO’s and Dongbu’s respective
affiliates in the United States (1) took
title to the subject merchandise and (2)
invoiced and received payment from the
unaffiliated U.S. customers for their
sales of the subject merchandise to those
U.S. customers.29 Thus, where
appropriate, the Department determined
that U.S. prices for these sales should be
based on the CEP under section 772(b)
of the Act. Where appropriate, we made
deductions from the starting price for
foreign inland freight to the port, foreign
brokerage, international freight, marine
insurance, U.S. inland freight from the
port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse
expenses, U.S. inland freight from the
warehouse to the unaffiliated customer,
U.S. brokerage and handling expenses,
U.S. customs duty, credit expenses,
warranty expenses, commissions,
inventory carrying costs incurred in the
United States, and other indirect selling
expenses in the United States associated
with economic activity in the United
States.30 Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of
the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP
profit. Where appropriate, we added
interest revenue to the gross unit price.
HYSCO’s Entries of Subject
Merchandise that were Further
Manufactured and Sold as Non-Subject
Merchandise in the United States
In its section A questionnaire
response, HYSCO requested that the
Department excuse it from reporting
information for certain POR sales of
subject merchandise imported by its
wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, HYSCO
America Company (HAC), that were
further manufactured after importation
and sold as non-subject merchandise in
the United States, claiming that
determining CEP for sales through HAC
would be unreasonably burdensome.31
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that
when the value added in the United
States by an affiliated party is likely to
exceed substantially the value of the
subject merchandise, the Department
shall use one of the following prices to
29 See Letter from HYSCO to the Department
entitled ‘‘Eighteenth Administrative Review of
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Korea: Section A Questionnaire Response,’’ dated
December 20, 2011, at pages A1–A3, (HYSCO QRA)
at A–23; see also Letter from Dongbu to the
Department entitled ‘‘Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Korea: Administrative
Review (8/1/10–7/31/11),’’ dated December 30,
2011, at pages A10 and A–23 (Dongbu QRA).
30 See sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of the
Act.
31 See HYSCO QRA at pages A1–A3.
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Notices
determine CEP if there is a sufficient
quantity of sales to provide a reasonable
basis of comparison and the use of such
sales is appropriate: (1) The price of
identical subject merchandise sold by
the exporter or producer to an
unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of
other subject merchandise sold by the
exporter or producer to an unaffiliated
person.
The record evidence shows that the
value added by the affiliated party to the
subject merchandise after importation in
the United States was significantly
greater than the 65 percent threshold we
use in determining whether the value
added in the United States by an
affiliated party substantially exceeds the
value of the subject merchandise.32 We
then considered whether there were
sales of identical subject merchandise or
other subject merchandise sold in
sufficient quantities by the exporter or
producer to an unaffiliated person that
could provide a reasonable basis of
comparison. In addition to the sales to
HAC that were further manufactured,
HYSCO also had CEP sales of similar,
but not identical, subject merchandise
to unaffiliated customers in the United
States in back-to-back transactions
through another HYSCO affiliate in the
United States, Hyundai HYSCO USA
(HHU).33
The appropriate methodology for
determining the CEP for sales whose
value has been substantially increased
through U.S. further manufacturing
generally must be made on a case-bycase basis.34 In this instance, we find
that there is a reasonable quantity of
sales of subject merchandise to
unaffiliated parties for comparison
purposes.35 Furthermore, there is no
other reasonable methodology for
determining CEP for HAC’s furthermanufacturered sales. Therefore, we
relied on HYSCO’s other sales of similar
merchandise to unaffiliated parties in
the United States as the basis for
calculating CEP for HYSCO’s sales
32 See
19 CFR 351.402(c)(2); HYSCO QRA at A9.
HYSCO QRA at A9; Letter from HYSCO to
the Department entitled ‘‘Eighteenth Administrative
Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Korea: Supplemental Sections A–C
Questionnaire Response,’’ dated August 7, 2012
(HYSCO 2SQR), at page 1 and exhibit 1.
34 See the Department’s Antidumping
Questionnaires, Appendices I–V at page I9 and I10,
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/questionnaires/
questionnaires-ad.html.
35 See Memorandum to the File, from Christopher
Hargett, Sr. International Trade Compliance
Analyst, through James Terpstra, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operation Office 3, entitled ‘‘Preliminary
Results in the 18th Administrative Review on
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Korea: Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai
HYSCO,’’ dated concurrently with this notice
(HYSCO Calc Memo).
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
33 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:45 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
through HAC, which is consistent with
the previous administrative reviews of
CORE from Korea.36
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the
aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the
quantity of the foreign like product sold
in the exporting country was sufficient
to permit a proper comparison with the
sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States, pursuant to section
773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)
of the Act, we based NV on the price at
which the foreign like product was first
sold for consumption in the home
market, in usual commercial quantities
and in the ordinary course of trade. We
increased NV by U.S. packing costs in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of
the Act.
Where appropriate, we deducted
inland freight from the plant to
distribution warehouse, warehouse
expense, inland freight from the plant/
warehouse to customer, and packing,
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the
Act. Additionally, we made adjustments
to NV, where appropriate, for credit and
warranty expenses, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we added interest
revenue, and applied billing
adjustments to the gross unit price.
For purposes of calculating NV,
section 771(16) of the Act defines
‘‘foreign like product’’ as merchandise
which is either (1) identical or (2)
similar to the merchandise sold in the
United States. When no identical
products are sold in the home market,
the products which are most similar to
the product sold in the United States are
identified. When the NV is based on the
prices of sales for the most similar
products, an adjustment is made to the
NV for differences in cost attributable to
differences in the actual physical
characteristics between the products
sold in the United States and in the
home market.37
36 See, e.g., CORE 17 Final Results; see also
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the Sixteenth Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55769
(September 14, 2010) (unchanged in the final
results); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 46110, 46112
(September 8, 2009) (unchanged in the final
results); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice
of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 52267, 52270
(September 9, 2008) (unchanged in the final
results).
37 See 19 CFR 351.411 and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54895
Cost of Production
As stated above, in the most recently
completed segments of this proceeding
in which HYSCO and Dongbu
participated, the Department found and
disregarded sales that failed the cost test
for each of these companies. Therefore,
for this review, the Department has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that sales of the foreign like products
under consideration for the
determination of NV may have been
made at prices below the COP as
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of
the Act, the Department conducted a
COP investigation of sales in the home
market by HYSCO and Dongbu.
A. Calculation of Cost of Production
We calculated the COP based on the
sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for SG&A expenses and
packing, in accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Act. Except as noted
below, the Department relied on the
COP data submitted by HYSCO and
Dongbu in their supplemental section D
questionnaire responses.
HYSCO provided information
showing that it purchased substrate (i.e.,
hot-rolled coil) from affiliated parties.
The substrate is a major input into
production of the merchandise-underconsideration, and, therefore, we have
applied the major input rule to value
such purchases. As a result, we adjusted
HYSCO’s substrate costs pursuant to
section 773(f)(3) of the Act. In addition,
for the preliminary results we used the
cost of manufacturing adjusted to reflect
the differences in temper rolling costs.38
Based on our review of the record
evidence, neither Dongbu nor HYSCO
appeared to experience significant
changes in the cost of manufacturing
during the POR.39 Therefore, we
followed our normal methodology of
calculating POR weighted-average COP.
38 See Memorandum from Ernest Z. Gziryan,
Senior Accountant, through Theresa C. Deeley,
Lead Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director,
Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Hyundai
HYSCO,’’ dated concurrently with this notice
(HYSCO Cost Calculation Memo).
39 See Letter from HYSCO to the Department
entitled ‘‘Eighteenth Administrative Review of
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
Korea: Response of Hyundai HYSCO to Section D
of the Department’s October 26, 2012,
Questionnaire,’’ dated January 13, 2012, at exhibit
D–3.
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
54896
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Notices
B. Test of Comparison Market Sales
Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of
the Act, we compared the POR
weighted-average COP to the per-unit
price of the home market sales of the
foreign like product to determine
whether these sales had been 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 home
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.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. Results of the 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 disregarded no
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 the respondent’s home market sales
of a given model were at prices less than
the COP, we disregarded the below-cost
sales because: (1) they were made
within an extended period of time in
‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act; and (2) based on our comparison of
prices to the weighted-average COPs,
they were at prices which would not
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act.
As a result of our analysis for these
preliminary results, for HYSCO and
Dongbu, we have disregarded certain
home markets sales priced below COP
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of
the Act.40
Calculation of NV Based on Home
Market Prices
For those home market products for
which there were sales at prices above
the COP for HYSCO and Dongbu, we
based NV on home market prices. In
these preliminary results, we were able
to match all U.S. sales to
contemporaneous sales, made in the
ordinary course of trade, of either an
identical or a similar foreign like
product, based on the matching
characteristics identified in Appendix V
of the original questionnaire. We
calculated NV based on free on board
(FOB) mill or delivered prices to
40 See HYSCO and Dongbu Cost Calculation
Memos.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:45 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
unaffiliated customers, or prices to
affiliated customers which were
determined to be at arm’s length (see
discussion below regarding these arm’slength sales). We made deductions,
where appropriate, from the starting
price for billing adjustments, discounts,
rebates, and inland freight.
Additionally, we added interest
revenue, where appropriate. In
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the
Act, we deducted home market packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs.
In accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we adjusted
for differences in the circumstances of
sale. These circumstances included
differences in imputed credit expenses
and other direct selling expenses, such
as the expense related to bank charges
and factoring. Id. We also made
adjustments, where appropriate, for
physical differences in the merchandise
in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Arm’s-Length Sales
Dongbu and HYSCO reported that
they made sales in the home market to
affiliated parties. The Department
calculates NV based on a sale to an
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that
the price to the affiliated party is
comparable to the price at which sales
are made to parties not affiliated with
the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at
arm’s-length.41
To test whether these sales were made
at arm’s length, we compared the
reported home market prices of sales to
affiliated and unaffiliated customers
with applied billing adjustments,
including interest revenue, net of all
movement charges, direct selling
expenses, discounts, rebates, and
packing. In accordance with the
Department’s current practice, if the
prices charged to an affiliated party
were, on average, between 98 and 102
percent of the prices charged to
unaffiliated parties at the same level-oftrade for merchandise identical or most
similar to the merchandise sold to the
affiliated party, we considered the sales
to be at arm’s-length prices.42
Conversely, where we found that the
sales to an affiliated party did not pass
the arm’s-length test, then all sales to
41 See
19 CFR 351.403(c).
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative:
Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR
45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006) (unchanged in
Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007));
19 CFR 351.403(c).
42 See
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that affiliated party have been excluded
from the NV calculation.43
Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined
NV based on sales in the home market
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the
EP or CEP sales, to the extent possible.
When there were no sales at the same
LOT, we compared U.S. sales to
comparison market sales at the most
similar LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to
determine whether EP or CEP sales and
NV sales were at different LOTs, we
examined stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the
chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’slength) customers. If the home market
sales are at a different LOT and the
differences affect price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between sales at
different LOTs in the country in which
NV is determined, we will make an LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of
the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT
is at a more advanced stage of
distribution than the CEP LOT, and the
data available do not provide an
appropriate basis to determine an LOT
adjustment, we will grant a CEP offset,
as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act.44
We did not make an LOT adjustment
under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because there
was only one home market LOT for each
respondent and we were unable to
identify a pattern of consistent price
differences attributable to differences in
LOTs.45 NV sales for each company are
at a more advanced LOT than the LOT
for their respective U.S. CEP sales.46
Thus, pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f), we are
preliminarily granting a CEP offset for
Dongbu and HYSCO.
For a detailed description of our LOT
methodology and a summary of
company-specific LOT findings for
these preliminary results, see Dongbu
and HYSCO’s preliminary results
calculation memorandum.
43 See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party
Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186,
69187 (November 15, 2002); also see Dongbu and
HYSCO’s preliminary results calculation
memorandums, dated concurrently with this notice.
44 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–
33 (November 19, 1997).
45 See 19 CFR 351.412(d).
46 See HYSCO Calc Memo at page 3, and
Dongbu’s Calc Memo at page 3.
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 173 / Thursday, September 6, 2012 / Notices
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
For purposes of these preliminary
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
results, we made currency conversions
all appropriate entries. If the weightedin accordance with section 773A(a) of
average dumping margin for particular
the Act, based on the official exchange
respondents is above de minimis in the
rates published by the Federal Reserve
final results of these reviews, we will
Bank.
calculate importer-specific ad valorem
Preliminary Results of the Review
duty assessment rates based on the ratio
of the total amount of dumping
As a result of this review, we
calculated for the importer’s examined
preliminarily find that the following
sales to the total entered value for those
weighted-average dumping margins
sales in accordance with 19 CFR
exist:
351.212(b)(1).51
The Department clarified its
Weightedaverage
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
Manufacturer/Exporter
dumping
May 6, 2003.52 This clarification will
margins
apply to entries of subject merchandise
(percent)
during the period of review produced by
Dongbu .....................................
0 companies selected for individual
HYSCO .....................................
0 examination in these preliminary results
Review-Specific Average Rate
of review for which the reviewed
Applicable to: Dongkuk,
companies did not know their
Haewon, Hausys, LG Chem,
merchandise was destined for the
and Union ..............................
0
United States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
Comment
entries at the country-specific all-others
rate if there is no rate for the
The Department intends to disclose
calculations performed within five days intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction.53
of the date of publication of this notice
For the companies which were not
to the parties to this proceeding in
selected for individual review, we will
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs calculate an assessment rate based on
the weighted average of the cash deposit
no later than 30 days after the date of
rates calculated for the companies
publication of these preliminary results
selected for individual review.
of review.47 Rebuttal briefs are limited
We intend to issue liquidation
to issues raised in the case briefs and
may be filed no later than five days after instructions to CBP 15 days after
the time limit for filing the case briefs.48 publication of the final results of this
review.
Parties submitting arguments in this
proceeding are requested to submit with Cash Deposit Requirements
the argument: (1) A statement of the
The following deposit rates will be
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
effective upon publication of the final
argument, and (3) a table of authorities,
results of this administrative review for
in accordance with 19 CFR
all shipments of CORE from Korea
351.309(d)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
must be served on interested parties in
for consumption on or after the
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
publication date, as provided by section
An interested party may request a
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash
hearing within 30 days of publication of
deposit rates for the companies listed
49 Any
these preliminary results.
above will be the rates established in the
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be
final results of this review, except if the
held two days after the due date of the
rate is less than 0.5 percent and,
rebuttal briefs in accordance with 19
therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit
CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department will
will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed
issue the final results of this
or investigated companies not listed
administrative review, which will
above, the cash deposit rate will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such comments, or
51 In these preliminary results, the Department
at a hearing, if requested, within 120
applied the assessment rate calculation method
days of publication of these preliminary adopted in Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., on
the basis of monthly average-to-average
results, unless extended.50
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Currency Conversion
47 See
19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
48 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
49 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
50 See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:45 Sep 05, 2012
Jkt 226001
comparisons using only the transactions associated
with that importer with offsets being provided for
non-dumped comparisons.
52 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
53 See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54897
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent final
results in which that manufacturer or
exporter participated; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent final results for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and (4) if neither
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this or any previous
review conducted by the Department,
the cash deposit rate will be 17.70
percent, the all-others rate established
in the LTFV.54 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 the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: August 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–21993 Filed 9–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–821–807]
Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium
from the Russian Federation:
Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: As a result of the
determination by the International
Trade Commission (ITC), that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order on ferrovanadium and nitrided
vanadium from the Russian Federation
(Russia) would not be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United
AGENCY:
54 See
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
Orders on Certain Steel from Korea.
06SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54891-54897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21993]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-816]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of the 18th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, and Partial Rescission
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting the 18th administrative review of the
antidumping order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE) from the Republic of Korea \1\ (Korea). This review covers seven
manufacturers and/or exporters (collectively, the respondents) of the
subject merchandise: Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu), Dongkuk
Industries Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd. (Haewon), Hyundai
HYSCO (HYSCO), LG Chem., Ltd. (LG Chem), LG Hausys, Ltd. (Hausys), and
Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union).\2\ The period of review
(POR) is August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011. We preliminarily
determine that Dongbu and HYSCO have not made sales of subject
merchandise at less than normal value (NV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part, 76 FR
61076 (October 3, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
\2\ The Department also initiated a review of Pohang Iron &
Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS)
(collectively, POSCO), in the Initiation Notice. However, POSCO was
revoked from the order on March 12, 2012. See Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea:
Notice of Final Results of the 2009-2010 Administrative Review and
Revocation, in Part, 77 FR 14501 (March 12, 2012) (CORE 17 Final
Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Additionally, we are
rescinding this review with respect to POSCO because this company has
been revoked from the antidumping duty order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson (Dongbu) or Christopher
Hargett (HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade
[[Page 54892]]
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3797, and (202) 482-4161, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on CORE from Korea.\4\ On August 2, 2010, we published in the
Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 45773 (August 1, 2011). On August 31, 2010, respondents
and petitioners \5\ requested a review of Dongbu, Dongkuk, Haewon,
Hausys, HYSCO, LG Chem, POSCO, and Union. The Department initiated a
review of each of the companies for which a review was requested.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993) (Orders on
Certain Steel from Korea).
\5\ Petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation (U.S.
Steel), Nucor Corporation (Nucor), and ArcelorMittal USA LLC
(ArcelorMittal USA).
\6\ See Initiation Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of Respondents for Individual Examination
On October 6, 2011, the Department placed on the record and
distributed to all interested parties under administrative protective
order a memorandum stating that we intend to limit the number of
companies individually examined during this review and attaching
proprietary data to be used for selection of companies for individual
examination in this administrative review.\7\ Due to the large number
of companies in this administrative review and the resulting
administrative burden of examining each company for which a request was
made, the Department determined that it would not be practicable to
examine individually all eight producers/exporters of subject
merchandise for which a review had been initiated.\8\ After careful
consideration of our resources, we determined to review a reasonable
number of respondents which account for the largest volume of subject
merchandise exported from Korea in accordance with section 777A(c)(2)
of the Act.\9\ On October 26, 2011, the Department selected Dongbu and
HYSCO as mandatory respondents in this review.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Customs and Border Patrol Data
for Selection of Respondents for Individual Review'' (October 6,
2011).
\8\ Id.
\9\ See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, AD/
CVD Operations, through James Terpstra, Program Manager, Office 3,
AD/CVD Operations, FROM: Christopher Hargett, Senior International
Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, titled
``Selection of Respondents for Individual Review'' (October 26,
2011) (Respondent Selection Memo).
\10\ See Memorandum from Christopher Hargett, Sr. International
Trade Compliance Analyst, through James Terpstra, Program Manager,
to Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, entitled ``18th Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review,'' dated October 26, 2010 (Respondent Selection
Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in
which HYSCO and Dongbu participated,\11\ the Department disregarded
sales below the cost of production (COP) for each of these companies.
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), we had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales by these companies of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of NV in this review were made at
prices below the COP. We instructed HYSCO and Dongbu to respond to
sections A through D of the initial questionnaire,\12\ which we issued
on October 26, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Sixteenth
Administrative Review, 76 FR 17381 (March 29, 2011).
\12\ Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and
Merchandise; Section B: Comparison Market Sales; Section C: Sales to
the United States; Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed
Value; Section E: Further Manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From December 2011 through August 2012, Dongbu and HYSCO submitted
timely responses to the Department's questionnaires.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ On August 13, 2012, Dongbu submitted a response to the
Department's second section D supplemental questionnaire issued on
August 3, 2012, but Dongbu inadvertently omitted narrative pages in
this submission. Following the Department's instructions, Dongbu
resubmitted a complete response on August 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Union
On October 28 and November 22, 2011, Union submitted requests to be
considered a mandatory respondent by the Department.\14\ On January 3,
2012, Union submitted its section A response to the Department's
initial questionnaire. On January 20, 2012, Union submitted its
sections B through D response to the Department's initial
questionnaire. On April 10, 2012, Union met with the Department to
reiterate its request that it be selected as a respondent in the
instant case.\15\ Pursuant to the reasons stated in the Respondent
Selection Memo, the Department maintains its decision to select and
individually review only two mandatory respondents in the instant
review, Dongbu and HYSCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Letter from Union to the Department requesting to be a
third mandatory respondent, dated October 28, 2011; see also Letter
from Union to the Department requesting to be a third mandatory
respondent, dated November 22, 2011.
\15\ See Memo to the File, ``Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel for
Union Steel,'' dated April 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Union was not selected as a mandatory respondent, it
submitted a voluntary response and has requested to be treated as a
voluntary respondent.\16\ As provided in section 782(a) of the Act, and
consistent with our findings in Frozen Shrimp,\17\ we separately
addressed the issue of whether we can examine voluntary respondents,
considering the available resources in light of the current workload,
including the work involved in examining the two mandatory respondents,
to determine whether examining voluntary respondents would be unduly
burdensome or inhibit timely completion of the review.\18\ For the
reasons discussed in the Union Voluntary Respondent Memo, we determined
that given the existing resources and the complexity of this case,
examining Union as a voluntary respondent would be unduly burdensome
and inhibit the timely completion of this administrative review.\19\
Thus we are not examining Union as a voluntary respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Letter from Union to the Department requesting to be a
voluntary respondent, dated October 28, 2011; see also Letters from
Union requesting to be a third mandatory respondent, dated October
28, 2011 and November 22, 2011 (both requesting in the alternative
to be considered a voluntary respondent).
\17\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Preliminary No Shipment Determination, 77 FR 13082, 13085 (March 5,
2012) (Frozen Shrimp).
\18\ See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Senior Advisor for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Melissa
Skinner, Office Director AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, entitled ``The
18th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products (CORE) from the Republic of
Korea: Union Steel's Request to be Examined as a Voluntary
Respondent,'' dated August 30, 2012 (Union's Voluntary Respondent
Memorandum).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 28, 2011, POSCO submitted its request to be considered a
voluntary respondent by the Department, but it withdrew its request to
participate as a voluntary respondent for this administrative review on
November 10, 2011. As mentioned, supra, POSCO was revoked from the CORE
Order in the CORE 17 Final Results, thus, we are rescinding this review
with respect to POSCO.
[[Page 54893]]
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2010, through July 31,
2011.
Scope of the Order
This order covers flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular
shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals
such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based
alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic
coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers)
and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if
of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch
or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of
a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds
150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000,
7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000,
7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000,
7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,
7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500,
7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060,
and 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of
non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved
subsequent to the rolling process including products which have been
beveled or rounded at the edges (i.e., products which have been
``worked after rolling''). Excluded from this order are flat-rolled
steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium,
chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium
and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted,
varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in
addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are
clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite
thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at
least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain
clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters
in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled
product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
Rates for Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination
Generally, we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents
not selected for individual examination. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the
Act instructs that we do not calculate an all-others rate using any
zero or de minimis weighted-average dumping margins or any weighted-
average dumping margins based on total facts available. Accordingly,
the Department's usual practice has been to average the rates for the
selected companies excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available.\20\ Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also
provides that, where all rates are zero, de minimis, or based on total
facts available, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning the
rate to non-selected respondents. One method that section 735(c)(5)(B)
of the Act contemplates as a possible method is ``averaging the
estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters
and producers individually investigated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR
52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) (AFBs 2008), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this review, we have calculated weighted-average dumping margins
of zero or de minimis for both companies selected as mandatory
respondents. In previous cases, the Department has determined that a
``reasonable method'' to use when, as here, the rates of the
respondents selected for individual examination are zero or de minimis
is to apply to those companies not selected for individual examination
the average of the most recently determined rates that are not zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on facts available (which may be from a
prior review or new shipper review).\21\ If any such non-selected
company had its own calculated rate that is contemporaneous with or
more recent than such prior determined rates, however, the Department
has applied such individual rate to the non-selected company in the
review in question, including when that rate is zero or de minimis.\22\
However, all prior rates for this proceeding were calculated using the
Department's zeroing methodology. The Department has stated that it
will not use its zeroing methodology in administrative reviews with
preliminary determinations issued after April 16, 2012.\23\ Therefore,
we will not apply any rates calculated in prior reviews to the non-
selected companies in these reviews. Based on this, and in accordance
with the statute and the Department's recent practice in AFBs 2012,\24\
we determine that a reasonable method for determining the weighted-
average dumping margins for the non-selected respondents in this review
is to average the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the
mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See AFBs 2008, and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 16.
\22\ Id.
\23\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012)
(Final Modification for Reviews).
\24\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
and Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews in
Part, 77 FR 33159 (June 5, 2012) (AFBs 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted Dumping Allegations
On May 8 and 24, 2012, petitioners submitted targeted dumping
allegations with regard to HYSCO and Dongbu, respectively.
The petitioners note that they conducted their own targeted dumping
analyses of Dongbu's and HYSCO's U.S. sales using the Department's
targeted dumping methodology as applied in Steel Nails and modified in
Wood Flooring.\25\ Based on the petitioners' own analysis, the
petitioners argue that the Department should conduct a targeted dumping
analysis and employ average-to-transaction comparisons
[[Page 54894]]
without offsets, should the Department find that the record supports
its allegation of targeted dumping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See The petitioners' Allegation of Targeted Dumping with
respect to Dongbu, dated May 24, 2012, at 3, 5-7, and (citing
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33,977
(June 16, 2008) (Steel Nails), and accompany Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 8; Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (Oct. 18, 2011) (Wood Flooring), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4); The
petitioners' Allegation of Targeted Dumping with respect to HYSCO,
dated May 8, 2012, at 3, 5-6 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 7, 2012, Dongbu submitted its response to petitioners'
May 24, 2012, targeted dumping allegation submitted with regard to
Dongbu. Dongbu argued that there is no statutory authority for applying
the targeted dumping exception provided in section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the
Act to this administrative review. Moreover, Dongbu claimed that a
decision to apply the average-to-transaction methodology with zeroing
in this review would completely undermine the recent change to the
Department's zeroing practice in reviews that was announced in the
Final Modification for Reviews. Accordingly, Dongbu requested that the
Department reject petitioners' targeted dumping allegation and instead
apply its new monthly average-to-average comparison methodology without
zeroing the negative comparison results in these preliminary results.
HYSCO did not comment on the targeted dumping allegation submitted
by the petitioners.
For purposes of these preliminary results, the Department did not
conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary
weighted-average dumping margin, the Department applied the calculation
methodology adopted in the Final Modification for Reviews.\26\ In
particular, the Department compared monthly, weighted-average U.S.
prices with monthly, weighted-average normal values, and granted
offsets for negative comparison results in the calculation of the
weighted-average dumping margins.\27\ Application of this methodology
in these preliminary results affords parties an opportunity to
meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation of this
recently adopted methodology in the context of this administrative
review. The Department intends to continue to consider, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.414(c), whether another method is appropriate in this
administrative review in light of the parties' pre-preliminary comments
and any comments on the issue that parties may include in their case
and rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Final Modification for Reviews.
\27\ See id. at 8102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
CORE products produced by the respondents, meeting the description of
the scope of the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to
be foreign like products. As the basis for NV, we first identified home
market sales in the ordinary course of trade of foreign like product
which was identical to the subject merchandise sold in the United
States. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we
identified home market sales of the most similar foreign like product
on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the
Department's antidumping questionnaire.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of CORE by the respondents to the United
States were made at prices less than NV, we compared U.S. prices, based
either on the export price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP),
to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price/Constructed Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In particular,
the Department compared monthly, weighted-average EPs or CEPs with
monthly, weighted-average normal values, and granted offsets for
negative comparison results in the calculation of the weighted-average
dumping margin for each respondent.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Final Modification for Reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price/Constructed Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter
outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was
not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated
CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated
with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter,
made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices
and the applicable delivery terms to the first unaffiliated customer
in, or for exportation to, the United States.
For U.S. prices based on EP, we made deductions for movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which
included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight to the port,
foreign brokerage, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland
freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S.
inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, U.S.
brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. customs duty.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP
where the record established that sales made by HYSCO and Dongbu were
made in the United States after importation. HYSCO's and Dongbu's
respective affiliates in the United States (1) took title to the
subject merchandise and (2) invoiced and received payment from the
unaffiliated U.S. customers for their sales of the subject merchandise
to those U.S. customers.\29\ Thus, where appropriate, the Department
determined that U.S. prices for these sales should be based on the CEP
under section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made deductions
from the starting price for foreign inland freight to the port, foreign
brokerage, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight
from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland
freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. brokerage
and handling expenses, U.S. customs duty, credit expenses, warranty
expenses, commissions, inventory carrying costs incurred in the United
States, and other indirect selling expenses in the United States
associated with economic activity in the United States.\30\ Pursuant to
section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit.
Where appropriate, we added interest revenue to the gross unit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Letter from HYSCO to the Department entitled
``Eighteenth Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Korea: Section A Questionnaire Response,''
dated December 20, 2011, at pages A1-A3, (HYSCO QRA) at A-23; see
also Letter from Dongbu to the Department entitled ``Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Administrative
Review (8/1/10-7/31/11),'' dated December 30, 2011, at pages A10 and
A-23 (Dongbu QRA).
\30\ See sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYSCO's Entries of Subject Merchandise that were Further Manufactured
and Sold as Non-Subject Merchandise in the United States
In its section A questionnaire response, HYSCO requested that the
Department excuse it from reporting information for certain POR sales
of subject merchandise imported by its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary,
HYSCO America Company (HAC), that were further manufactured after
importation and sold as non-subject merchandise in the United States,
claiming that determining CEP for sales through HAC would be
unreasonably burdensome.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See HYSCO QRA at pages A1-A3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that when the value added in the
United States by an affiliated party is likely to exceed substantially
the value of the subject merchandise, the Department shall use one of
the following prices to
[[Page 54895]]
determine CEP if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a
reasonable basis of comparison and the use of such sales is
appropriate: (1) The price of identical subject merchandise sold by the
exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of
other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an
unaffiliated person.
The record evidence shows that the value added by the affiliated
party to the subject merchandise after importation in the United States
was significantly greater than the 65 percent threshold we use in
determining whether the value added in the United States by an
affiliated party substantially exceeds the value of the subject
merchandise.\32\ We then considered whether there were sales of
identical subject merchandise or other subject merchandise sold in
sufficient quantities by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated
person that could provide a reasonable basis of comparison. In addition
to the sales to HAC that were further manufactured, HYSCO also had CEP
sales of similar, but not identical, subject merchandise to
unaffiliated customers in the United States in back-to-back
transactions through another HYSCO affiliate in the United States,
Hyundai HYSCO USA (HHU).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2); HYSCO QRA at A9.
\33\ See HYSCO QRA at A9; Letter from HYSCO to the Department
entitled ``Eighteenth Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Supplemental Sections A-C
Questionnaire Response,'' dated August 7, 2012 (HYSCO 2SQR), at page
1 and exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appropriate methodology for determining the CEP for sales whose
value has been substantially increased through U.S. further
manufacturing generally must be made on a case-by-case basis.\34\ In
this instance, we find that there is a reasonable quantity of sales of
subject merchandise to unaffiliated parties for comparison
purposes.\35\ Furthermore, there is no other reasonable methodology for
determining CEP for HAC's further-manufacturered sales. Therefore, we
relied on HYSCO's other sales of similar merchandise to unaffiliated
parties in the United States as the basis for calculating CEP for
HYSCO's sales through HAC, which is consistent with the previous
administrative reviews of CORE from Korea.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See the Department's Antidumping Questionnaires, Appendices
I-V at page I9 and I10, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/questionnaires/questionnaires-ad.html.
\35\ See Memorandum to the File, from Christopher Hargett, Sr.
International Trade Compliance Analyst, through James Terpstra,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operation Office 3, entitled ``Preliminary
Results in the 18th Administrative Review on Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Calculation Memorandum for
Hyundai HYSCO,'' dated concurrently with this notice (HYSCO Calc
Memo).
\36\ See, e.g., CORE 17 Final Results; see also Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Sixteenth Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55769 (September 14, 2010)
(unchanged in the final results); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 46110, 46112 (September 8, 2009) (unchanged in the final
results); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52267, 52270
(September 9, 2008) (unchanged in the final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the
price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption
in the home market, in usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary
course of trade. We increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we deducted inland freight from the plant to
distribution warehouse, warehouse expense, inland freight from the
plant/warehouse to customer, and packing, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where
appropriate, for credit and warranty expenses, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Where appropriate, we added
interest revenue, and applied billing adjustments to the gross unit
price.
For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines
``foreign like product'' as merchandise which is either (1) identical
or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When no
identical products are sold in the home market, the products which are
most similar to the product sold in the United States are identified.
When the NV is based on the prices of sales for the most similar
products, an adjustment is made to the NV for differences in cost
attributable to differences in the actual physical characteristics
between the products sold in the United States and in the home
market.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.411 and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Production
As stated above, in the most recently completed segments of this
proceeding in which HYSCO and Dongbu participated, the Department found
and disregarded sales that failed the cost test for each of these
companies. Therefore, for this review, the Department has reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like products
under consideration for the determination of NV may have been made at
prices below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted
a COP investigation of sales in the home market by HYSCO and Dongbu.
A. Calculation of Cost of Production
We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A
expenses and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
Except as noted below, the Department relied on the COP data submitted
by HYSCO and Dongbu in their supplemental section D questionnaire
responses.
HYSCO provided information showing that it purchased substrate
(i.e., hot-rolled coil) from affiliated parties. The substrate is a
major input into production of the merchandise-under-consideration,
and, therefore, we have applied the major input rule to value such
purchases. As a result, we adjusted HYSCO's substrate costs pursuant to
section 773(f)(3) of the Act. In addition, for the preliminary results
we used the cost of manufacturing adjusted to reflect the differences
in temper rolling costs.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Memorandum from Ernest Z. Gziryan, Senior Accountant,
through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead Accountant, to Neal M. Halper,
Director, Office of Accounting, entitled ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Korea: Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Hyundai
HYSCO,'' dated concurrently with this notice (HYSCO Cost Calculation
Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the record evidence, neither Dongbu nor
HYSCO appeared to experience significant changes in the cost of
manufacturing during the POR.\39\ Therefore, we followed our normal
methodology of calculating POR weighted-average COP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Letter from HYSCO to the Department entitled
``Eighteenth Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Korea: Response of Hyundai HYSCO to Section
D of the Department's October 26, 2012, Questionnaire,'' dated
January 13, 2012, at exhibit D-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54896]]
B. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the POR
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the home market sales of
the foreign like product to determine whether these sales had been 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 home 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.
C. Results of the 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 disregarded no 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 the respondent's home market
sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded
the below-cost sales because: (1) they were made within an extended
period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs, they were at prices
which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
As a result of our analysis for these preliminary results, for
HYSCO and Dongbu, we have disregarded certain home markets sales priced
below COP in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See HYSCO and Dongbu Cost Calculation Memos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculation of NV Based on Home Market Prices
For those home market products for which there were sales at prices
above the COP for HYSCO and Dongbu, we based NV on home market prices.
In these preliminary results, we were able to match all U.S. sales to
contemporaneous sales, made in the ordinary course of trade, of either
an identical or a similar foreign like product, based on the matching
characteristics identified in Appendix V of the original questionnaire.
We calculated NV based on free on board (FOB) mill or delivered prices
to unaffiliated customers, or prices to affiliated customers which were
determined to be at arm's length (see discussion below regarding these
arm's-length sales). We made deductions, where appropriate, from the
starting price for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, and inland
freight. Additionally, we added interest revenue, where appropriate. In
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we
adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale. These
circumstances included differences in imputed credit expenses and other
direct selling expenses, such as the expense related to bank charges
and factoring. Id. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for
physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Arm's-Length Sales
Dongbu and HYSCO reported that they made sales in the home market
to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV based on a sale to
an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to
parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at
arm's-length.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared
the reported home market prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers with applied billing adjustments, including interest revenue,
net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts,
rebates, and packing. In accordance with the Department's current
practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on
average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to
unaffiliated parties at the same level-of-trade for merchandise
identical or most similar to the merchandise sold to the affiliated
party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices.\42\
Conversely, where we found that the sales to an affiliated party did
not pass the arm's-length test, then all sales to that affiliated party
have been excluded from the NV calculation.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative: Ninth Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017,
45020 (August 8, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of the
Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007)); 19 CFR
351.403(c).
\43\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002);
also see Dongbu and HYSCO's preliminary results calculation
memorandums, dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined
NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade (LOT)
as the EP or CEP sales, to the extent possible. When there were no
sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market
sales at the most similar LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether EP or CEP sales
and NV sales were at different LOTs, we examined stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers.
If the home market sales are at a different LOT and the differences
affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent
price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in
which NV is determined, we will make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, and the data available
do not provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT adjustment, we
will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the
Act.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South
Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not make an LOT adjustment under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because
there was only one home market LOT for each respondent and we were
unable to identify a pattern of consistent price differences
attributable to differences in LOTs.\45\ NV sales for each company are
at a more advanced LOT than the LOT for their respective U.S. CEP
sales.\46\ Thus, pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.412(f), we are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for Dongbu and
HYSCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 19 CFR 351.412(d).
\46\ See HYSCO Calc Memo at page 3, and Dongbu's Calc Memo at
page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see Dongbu
and HYSCO's preliminary results calculation memorandum.
[[Page 54897]]
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/Exporter dumping
margins
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu..................................................... 0
HYSCO...................................................... 0
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to: Dongkuk, 0
Haewon, Hausys, LG Chem, and Union........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed within
five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to
this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested
parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results of review.\47\ Rebuttal briefs
are limited to issues raised in the case briefs and may be filed no
later than five days after the time limit for filing the case
briefs.\48\ Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue,
(2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Case and rebuttal briefs must be
served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
\48\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results.\49\ Any hearing, if
requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due date of the
rebuttal briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department
will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results, unless extended.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\50\ See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. If the weighted-average dumping
margin for particular respondents is above de minimis in the final
results of these reviews, we will calculate importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of
dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total
entered value for those sales in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for
Reviews, i.e., on the basis of monthly average-to-average
comparisons using only the transactions associated with that
importer with offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003.\52\ This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the period of review produced by companies selected
for individual examination in these preliminary results of review for
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the country-specific all-others rate
if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the
transaction.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
\53\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we
will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the
cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual
review.
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
CORE from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above
will be the rates established in the final results of this review,
except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis,
the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review,
or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 17.70 percent, the all-others rate established in
the LTFV.\54\ These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Orders on Certain Steel from Korea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-21993 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
