[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53887-53892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2069]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-841]
Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 30, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register (68 FR 56262) a notice
announcing the initiation of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from the Republic of
Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2002, to July
30, 2003.
We preliminarily determine that sales of structural steel beams
from Korea have been made at prices below the normal value (NV) by the
respondents, INI Steel Company (INI) and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd.
(DSM). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of
this administrative review, we will instruct Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on all appropriate
entries.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested
to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a brief
summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD
Enforcement, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0649.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 1, 2003 the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
structural steel beams from Korea. (See Antidumping or Countervailing
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 68 FR 45218 (August 1, 2003)). On August 29,
2003, petitioners Nucor Corporation, Nucor Yamato Steel Co., and TXI-
Chaparral Steel Co. requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of DSM and INI, which are Korean producers of
subject merchandise. Also, on August 29, 2003, DSM requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of subject
merchandise during the POR. On September 30, 2003, the Department
published a notice of initiation of a review of structural steel beams
from Korea covering the period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003.
(See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 56262 (September 30,
2003)). On December 17, 2003 the Department issued its antidumping duty
questionnaires, covering Sections A through E, to INI and to DSM.
The Department had not disregarded sales of structural steel beams
made by DSM at prices below the cost of production (COP) in the most
recently completed review of DSM; therefore DSM was not initially
required to respond to section D of the questionnaire. On March 2,
2004, petitioners filed an allegation that DSM had made below-cost
sales. On April 6, 2004, the Department initiated a cost investigation
of DSM, after which DSM was required to respond to Section D of the
questionnaire.
Because we disregarded sales of certain products made by INI at
prices below the COP in what was at that time the most recently
completed review of structural steel beams from Korea (see Structural
Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative
[[Page 53888]]
Review, 68 FR 2499 (January 17, 2003)), we had reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect INI made sales of the foreign like product at prices
below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff
Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, from
the outset of this review we required INI to respond to section D of
the questionnaire.
INI submitted its response to sections A through D on January 16,
2004. On April 6, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to INI, to which INI responded on April 30, 2004. On July
21, 2004, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to
INI, to which INI responded on August 11, 2004.
DSM submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on
January 7, 2004, and its response to sections B and C of the
questionnaire on February 9, 2004. On March 9, 2004, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire to DSM for Section A, to which DSM
responded on April 6, 2004. On April 15, 2004, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to DSM for Section B, to which DSM responded
on May 10, 2004. On May 3, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to DSM for Section C, to which DSM responded on May 27,
2004.
DSM submitted its response to Section D of the questionnaire on May
4, 2004. On July 22, 2004, the Department issued an additional
supplemental questionnaire to DSM, covering sections A, B, C, and D, to
which DSM responded on August 20, 2004.
Both INI and DSM indicated in their initial Section A responses
that no further manufacturing in the United States was performed by an
affiliate or a contractor, and neither provided responses to Section E
of the questionnaire.
Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the
normal time frame, on December 16, 2003, the Department extended the
time limit for the preliminary results of the administrative review to
August 30, 2004 (see Structural Steel Beams From Korea: Extension of
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 16894 (March 31, 2004)).
Period of Review
The POR is from August 1, 2002, to July 30, 2003.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are doubly-symmetric shapes,
whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished,
having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more),
whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or
not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. These products
include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (``W'' shapes),
bearing piles (``HP'' shapes), standard beams (``S'' or ``I'' shapes)
and ``M'' shapes. All products that meet the physical and metallurgical
descriptions provided above are within the scope of this review unless
otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or
specifically excluded from the scope of this review: structural steel
beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section
height (also known as depth) over 40 inches.
The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at
subheadings: 7216.32.00000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090,
7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000,
7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7228.70.3040, and 7228.70.6000. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered
all structural steel beams produced by DSM and INI covered by the
description in the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice,
supra, which were sold in the home market during the reporting period
for home market sales, to be the foreign like product for the purpose
of determining appropriate product comparisons to structural steel
beams products sold in the United States. In making product
comparisons, we matched products based on the physical characteristics
identified in our questionnaire and reported by DSM and INI as follows
(listed in order of preference): hot-formed or cold-formed, shape/size
(section depth), strength/grade, whether or not coated. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign
like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting
instructions listed in the questionnaire, or to constructed value (CV),
as appropriate.
Affiliation
In the previous administrative review, which covered the August 1,
2001 through July 31, 2002 POR, the Department found DSM and Dongkuk
Industries Co., Ltd., (DKI) to be affiliated because they were under
the common control of a family grouping. (See Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Structural Steel Beams From the
Republic of Korea, 68 FR 53129, 53131 (September 9, 2003), unchanged in
Structural Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 7200, 7201 (February 13,
2004)). DSM and DKI have been determined to be affiliated in recent
reviews of other antidumping duty orders covering PORs that overlap
with the POR of the current review of structural steel beams from
Korea. (See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products
From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 62770, 62771 (November
6, 2003), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results and Rescission in
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 26361 (May 12,
2004), with a POR of February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003; and
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 19399 (April
13, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
1, with a POR of January 30, 2001, through August 31, 2002).
In the current structural steel beams review, DSM stated in its
January 7, 2004, Section A response at page 9 that DKI ceased to be
affiliated with DSM as of January 2001 because of a change in DKI's
ownership percentage of DSM. However, this change took place prior to
the previous (August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002) POR, and this
information was also accounted for in the Department's affiliation
decisions in the aforementioned proceedings. Furthermore, DSM
acknowledged that some of the major owners of DKI are relatives of some
of the major owners of DSM (see January 7, 2004, Section A response at
page 9), as was the case in the previous review, and did not provide
any additional arguments why the Department should determine
differently in this review. DSM has since continued to maintain that it
is not affiliated with DKI (see DSM's August 20, 2004, supplemental
questionnaire response in footnote 8 at
[[Page 53889]]
page 23), but DSM did not provide any additional information or
explanation to demonstrate that any substantive change has taken place.
Consequently, we find sufficient evidence to conclude that DSM and DKI
continue to be affiliated based on the record of this review, given the
lack of any new information which would lead us to conclude otherwise.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of structural steel beams from Korea to
the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared
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, below. In accordance with
section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of
individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average NVs of the
foreign like product where there were sales at prices above the cost of
production (COP), as discussed in the ``Cost of Production'' section
below.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as ``the price at which
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
for exportation to the United States * * *,'' as adjusted under
subsection (c). Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as ``the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not
affiliated with the producer or exporter * * *,'' as adjusted under
subsections (c) and (d). For the purposes of this administrative
review, DSM has classified all of its U.S. sales as CEP sales, and INI
has classified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales.
INI
For INI, we calculated the price of U.S. sales made prior to
importation to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made
deductions from the reported gross price for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included,
where appropriate, foreign inland freight from plant to warehouse,
foreign inland freight from plant/warehouse to port of exportation,
foreign warehousing, international freight, U.S. duties, and U.S.
brokerage expenses. We made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act.
DSM
For DSM, we calculated CEP based on the prices from Dongkuk
International, Inc. (DKA), a U.S. affiliate of DSM, to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act;
these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the
plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling expenses
incurred by DSM and DKI (i.e., loading and unloading charges, wharfage
and lashing expenses, brokerage fees, and port renovation expenses),
international freight, marine insurance, other U.S. transportation
expenses (i.e., U.S. wharfage, brokerage, and handling charges), and
U.S. customs duty. Also, we made deductions for commissions for selling
the subject merchandise in the United States in accordance with section
772(d)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act.
Additionally, we made deductions for expenses that bear a direct
relationship to the sale in the United States (i.e., credit, and other
direct selling expenses) pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(B). We added an
amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance
with section 772 (d)(3) of the Tariff Act. We deducted the profit
allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2)
in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Tariff Act. In
accordance with section 772(f) of the Tariff Act, we computed profit
based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home
markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then
allocated profit expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic
activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses
for both the U.S. and home markets.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to
the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the
comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP
transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from
which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and
profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting price sale,
which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is the
level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer.
If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and that
difference affects price comparability (as manifested in a pattern of
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and
comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction), we make
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act.
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the
differences in the levels between NV and CEP sales affects price
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Tariff
Act (the CEP offset provision). (See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South
Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997)).
In identifying levels of trade for CEP, we considered only the
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. (See Micron
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir.
2001)). Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same in the
home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller
should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that
are different for different categories of sales, the functions and
activities should be dissimilar. (See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from
Mexico; Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10,
2000)).
In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we
obtained information from INI and DSM about the marketing stages
involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including
descriptions of the selling activities performed for each channel of
distribution.
INI
INI indicated its home market sales were through two channels
(sales to unaffiliated distributors, and sales to affiliated and
unaffiliated end-users) and its U.S. sales were through one channel (to
unaffiliated U.S. customers). INI did not claim any distinct levels of
trade, and its descriptions of selling functions indicated very little
variation
[[Page 53890]]
across channels and markets. Consequently, we preliminarily determine
that there is only one level of trade in both markets for INI.
DSM
DSM claimed only one level of trade in the home market. (See DSM's
February 9, 2004, Section B response at page 22). Additionally, DSM
reported that it sold through two channels of distribution in the home
market: directly to unaffiliated customers (distributors and end-
users); and government entities. (See DSM's February 9, 2004 Section B
response at page 10). DSM reported that it performed a limited range of
selling functions in the home market. (See DSM's January 7, 2004,
section A response at Appendix 4). Because DSM performed the same
selling functions for its two channels of distribution in the home
market and identical selling functions are performed for all home
market sales, we preliminarily determine there is one LOT in the home
market.
DSM claimed one level of trade in the U.S. market. DSM reported it
sold through one channel of distribution in the U.S. market, directly
from its production facility to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. However
the complete sales process was as follows: DSM sold the merchandise to
an affiliated Korean trading company, DKI, which then resold the
merchandise to another affiliate, DKA, which resold the merchandise to
the unaffiliated U.S. customer. (See DSM's January 7, 2004, section A
response at pages 8 and 9).
To determine the LOT of the respondent's CEP sales, we analyze the
cumulative selling functions performed by DSM and by DKI. With respect
to the assorted selling functions identified by DSM and its affiliates
in DSM's response, the record indicates that those selling functions
were the same for all U.S. sales. (See DSM's January 7, 2004 section A
response at Appendix 4). In addition, DSM did not identify all of the
functions in the Department's original questionnaire, nor did it appear
to identify all of the functions performed for U.S. sales. Therefore,
we preliminarily determine that there is no basis for determining that
there is a distinct, less advanced LOT for U.S. sales than for home
market sales. Therefore, no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is
greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Because the
respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was
viable. (See INI's April 30, 2004, response at Exhibit A-23 and DSM's
January 7, 2004 section A response at Appendix A-1).
B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
The Department may calculate 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 prices at which sales are made to parties not
affiliated with the respondent, i.e., sales at arm's-length. (See
section 773(f)(2) of the Tariff Act; see also 19 CFR 351.403(c)).
DSM reported no sales to affiliated parties in the home market. INI
reported that a small portion of its home market sales were to
affiliated parties. Those sales to affiliated parties amounted to less
than five percent of total home market sales, and INI was not required
to report downstream sales of those affiliated parties. Sales to
affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-length prices
are excluded from our analysis because we consider them to be outside
the ordinary course of trade. (See 19 CFR 351.102(b)). To test whether
the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared
on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated
and unaffiliated customers net of all direct selling expenses,
discounts and rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where applicable,
we also made adjustments to gross unit price for reported billing
adjustments. Where prices to the affiliated party were, on average,
within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of identical or
comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that
the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. In
accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded sales to
affiliated parties that we determined were not made at arm's length.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we
calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of
material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus
amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A)
expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on
the COP data reported by INI and DSM.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, whether, within an extended
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time. Pursuant to section
773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of the
respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent
or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at
prices less than 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
Tariff Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-
average COPs for the POR, 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 Tariff Act.
To determine whether INI made sales at prices below COP, we
compared the product-specific COP figures to home market prices net of
reported billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and applicable
movement charges of the foreign like product as required under section
773(b) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether DSM made sales at prices
below COP, we compared the product-specific COP figures to home market
prices net of applicable movement charges of the foreign like product
as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act.
Our cost test for INI and for DSM revealed that for home market
sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales volume (by
weight) of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore
retained all such sales observations in our analysis and used them in
the calculation of NV. Our cost
[[Page 53891]]
test also indicated that for certain INI models, 20 percent or more of
the home market sales volume (by weight) were sold at prices below COP
within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time;
for DSM that was not the case. Thus, in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, for INI we excluded these below-cost sales
from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales in the
calculation of NV.
D. Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, for both INI
and DSM, we calculated CV based on the sum of the respondent's material
and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs.
We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the ``Cost
of Production Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market direct
and indirect selling expenses.
E. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers and
prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length for
home market sale observations that passed the cost test, and made
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff
Act.
For INI, we made adjustments to gross unit price, where applicable,
for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and interest revenue,
and made deductions, where applicable, for foreign inland freight
(i.e., inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse, and inland
freight from plant/distribution warehouse to customer), pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, we deducted home market packing
costs and added U.S. packing costs. We made adjustments for differences
in circumstances of sale, where applicable, for commissions, home
market credit expenses, warranty expenses, and U.S. imputed credit
expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff
Act. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act,
where the Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of
contemporaneous matches in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, we based NV on CV.
For DSM, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated
purchasers. We made adjustments for discounts. We made adjustments,
where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act. We made
adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses (i.e., inland
freight from plant to customer) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)
of the Tariff Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit,
where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the
Tariff Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Tariff Act, we
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.
Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, where
the Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of
contemporaneous matches in accordance with 773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV
on CV.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2002, through July 31,
2003, to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INI Steel Company....................................... 16.62
Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd............................. 4.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty
days of publication of these preliminary results. (See 19 CFR
351.310(c)). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the
date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the
Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties
may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date
of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these
proceedings 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. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case
briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such
argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the
issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments
or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results.
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion
of the review. For the preliminary results, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates based upon importer information provided by
INI and DSM. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be
effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of structural steel beams from Korea entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
(1) The cash deposit rates for the companies reviewed will be the
rates established in the final results of review;
(2) For any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate published for the most recent period;
(3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
previous review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 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 the ``all others'' rate of 37.21 percent from the
LTFV investigation; (see Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From South Korea, 65 FR
50501 (August 18, 2000) and Structural Steel Beams From South Korea:
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 50502 (August 18, 2000)).
[[Page 53892]]
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: August 30, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E4-2069 Filed 9-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-P