[Federal Register: September 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 51584-51588]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10se07-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-580-816)
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners,\1\ the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting the thirteenth administrative
review of the antidumping order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat products (CORE) from Korea. This review covers three manufacturers
and exporters (collectively, the respondents) of the subject
merchandise: Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO);
and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union). The period of review
(POR) is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. We preliminarily
determine that during the POR, Dongbu, HYSCO, and Union made sales of
subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). In addition, we are
preliminary rescinding this review with respect to Pohang Iron & Steel
Company, Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS)
(collectively, the POSCO Group), as a result of petitioners timely
withdrawal of its review request. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation (U.S.
Steel) and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal Steel USA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2007
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska or George McMahon
(Union), Preeti Tolani (Dongbu), and Victoria Cho or Christopher
Hargett (HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-8362, (202) 482-1167, (202) 482-0395, (202) 482-5075 and
(202) 482-4161, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping order
on CORE from Korea. See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993) (Orders on
Certain Steel from Korea). On August 1, 2006, we published in the
Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 71 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). On August 31, 2006, respondents
and petitioners requested a review of Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group,
and Union. The Department initiated this review on September 29, 2006.
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006).
During the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in
which Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union participated, the
Department disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) that
failed the cost test.\2\ 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 Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union to respond to
sections A-D of the initial questionnaire,\3\ which we issued on
September 13, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from
the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53370, 53375 (September 11, 2006)
(Preliminary Results of the 12th Review of CORE from Korea); Notice
of Final Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 72 FR 13086 (March 20,
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum; and Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea; Notice of Amended Final Results of the Twelfth Administrative
Review, 72 FR 20815 (April 26, 2007).
\3\ 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 28, 2006, the petitioners timely withdrew their request
for an administrative review of the POSCO Group. Thus, we are
preliminary rescinding the request for review of the antidumping order
for the POSCO Group.
On April 19, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the thirteenth
administrative review from May 3, 2007, to August 31, 2007. See
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Extension of
Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 19688 (April 19, 2007).
Rescission of Administrative Review for the POSCO Group
As provided in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), ``[t]he Secretary will rescind
an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a
party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested
review.'' The petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative
review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the instant administrative review and no other party
requested an administrative review of the POSCO Group. Therefore, the
Department is rescinding the administrative review with respect to the
POSCO Group.
Dongbu
On November 10, 2006, Dongbu submitted its section A response to
the initial questionnaire. On November 20, 2006, Dongbu submitted its
sections B-D response to the initial questionnaire. On February 9,
2007, Dongbu submitted its supplemental questionnaire responses for
sections A-C. Dongbu submitted its responses to the Department's three
section D supplemental questionnaires on March 12, 2007, March 26,
2007, and April 19, 2007, respectively.
Union
On November 13, 2006, Union submitted its section A response to the
initial questionnaire. On November 20, 2006, Union submitted its
sections B-C response to the initial questionnaire. Union submitted its
responses to the Department's three section A-C supplemental
questionnaires on February 2, 2007, April 16, 2007 and June 1, 2007,
respectively.
[[Page 51585]]
HYSCO
On November 3, 2006, HYSCO submitted its section A response to the
Department's initial questionnaire. On November 22, 2006, HYSCO
submitted its section B-D response to the Department's initial
questionnaire. HYSCO submitted its responses to the Department's three
section A-D supplemental questionnaires on January 29, 2007, February
20, 2007, and May 24, 2007, respectively.
Verification
The Department conducted the sales verification of Dongbu and
HYSCO, from June 18 through 29, 2007, and Union from July 23 through
27, 2007, in Seoul, South Korea. The Department conducted the cost
verification of HYSCO in Seoul, South Korea, from July 31 through
August 4, 2007. The Department will conduct the cost verification of
Dongbu and Union in Seoul, South Korea, after these preliminary
results.
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2005, through July 31,
2006.
Scope of the Order
This order covers flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular
shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals
such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based
alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic
coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers)
and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if
of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch
or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of
a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds
150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000,
7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000,
7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000,
7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,
7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,
7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500,
7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060,
and 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of
non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved
subsequent to the rolling process including products which have been
beveled or rounded at the edges (i.e., products which have been
``worked after rolling''). Excluded from this order are flat-rolled
steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium,
chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium
and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted,
varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in
addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are
clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite
thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at
least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain
clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters
in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled
product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
CORE products produced by the respondents, covered by the scope of the
order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like
products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons
to CORE sold in the United States.
Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on
the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V
physical characteristics reported by each respondent. Where sales were
made in the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S.
market (theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities
to the same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the
respondents, before making our fair-value comparisons.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of CORE by the respondents to the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared the Export Price (EP) or
Constructed Export Price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export
Price/Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual
U.S. transactions.
Export Price/Constructed Export Price
We calculated the price of U.S. sales based on CEP, in accordance
with section 772(b) of the Act, which defines the term ``constructed
export price'' 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
of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter,
as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d)'' of this section. In
contrast, section 772(a) of the Act defines ``export price'' 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 in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c)'' of
this section.
In determining whether to classify U.S. sales as either EP or CEP
sales, the Department must examine the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the U.S. sales process, and assess where the reviewed sales
or agreements of sale were made for purposes of section 772(b) of the
Act. In the instant case, the record establishes that the sales were
made in the United States after importation. Dongbu's, HYSCO's, and
Union's affiliates in the United States (1) took title to the subject
merchandise and (2) invoiced and received payment from the unaffiliated
U.S. customers for their sales of the subject merchandise to those U.S.
customers. Thus, the Department has determined that these U.S. sales
should be classified as CEP transactions under section 772(b) of the
Act.
For Dongbu, HYSCO, and Union, we calculated CEP based on packed
prices to unaffiliated customers in the United
[[Page 51586]]
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price
for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage
and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. warehousing
expenses, U.S. wharfage, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and
handling, loading expenses, other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S.
customs duties, commissions, credit expenses, letter of credit
expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, inventory
carrying costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect
selling expenses in the country of manufacture and the United States
associated with economic activity in the United States. 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.
Consistent with the Department's normal practice, for Union we
added the reported duty drawback to the gross unit price. We did so in
accordance with the Department's long-standing test, which requires
that: (1) the import duty and rebate be directly linked to, and
dependent upon, one another; and (2) the company claiming the
adjustment demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of imported
raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on the exports
of the manufactured product.
HYSCO's Sales of Subject Merchandise that were Further Manufactured and
Sold as Non-Subject Merchandise in the United States
In its Section A questionnaire response and on September 27, 2006,
HYSCO requested that the Department exclude 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, citing ``the
extreme difficulty in calculating CEP for these sales through HAC.''
The Department issued several supplemental questionnaires to HYSCO
regarding these HAC CEP sales.
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that when the value added in the
United States by an affiliated party is likely to exceed substantially
the value of the subject merchandise, the Department shall use one of
the following prices to determine CEP if there is a sufficient quantity
of sales to provide a reasonable basis of comparison and the use of
such sales is appropriate: (1) The price of identical subject
merchandise sold by the exporter or producer to an unaffiliated person;
or (2) The price of other subject merchandise sold by the exporter or
producer to an unaffiliated person.
Our analysis showed that the value added by the affiliated party to
the subject merchandise after importation in the United States was
significantly greater than the 65 percent threshold we use in
determining whether the value added in the United States by an
affiliated party substantially exceeds the value of the subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.402 (c)(2). We then considered whether
there were sales of identical subject merchandise or other subject
merchandise sold in sufficient quantities by the exporter or producer
to an unaffiliated person that could provide a reasonable basis of
comparison. In addition to the sales to HAC that were further
manufactured, HYSCO also had CEP sales of similar, but not identical,
subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States in
back-to-back transactions through another HYSCO affiliate in the United
States, Hyundai HYSCO USA (``HHU'').
Decisions as to the appropriate methodology for determining CEP for
sales involving further manufacturing generally must be made on a case-
by-case basis. In this instance, the quantity of sales of identical or
other subject merchandise to an unaffiliated person is relatively
small. However, another reasonable method for determining CEP for the
HAC CEP sales is not evident. In this case, the value added after
importation is very large and the further manufacturing very complex.
Therefore, similar to our practice in other cases, see, e.g., Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 28676 (May
22, 2007), we relied on HYSCO's other sales of similar merchandise to
unaffiliated parties in the United States as the basis for calculating
CEP on HYSCO's sales through HAC. Although we have relied on a
relatively small quantity of sales, as under the circumstances here
this is the most reasonable methodology, we will continue to assess
whether such quantities provide an adequate basis for our dumping
analysis in other cases. Therefore, in this and future reviews we will
reexamine the appropriate methodology to use when presented with
similar circumstances.
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) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the
home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary
course of trade.
Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, discounts, inland freight
(offset, where applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and
packing. Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate,
for credit expenses, warranty expenses, post-sale warehousing, and
differences in weight basis. We also made adjustments, where
appropriate, for home market indirect selling expenses and inventory
carrying costs to offset U.S. commissions.
We also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to NV for
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
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 there
are no identical products sold in the home market, the products which
are most similar to the product sold in the United States are
identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are
identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an
adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the
actual physical differences between the products sold in the United
States and the home market or third country market. See 19 CFR 351.411
and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT) as the CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no
sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market
sales at a different LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether CEP sales and NV
sales were at different LOTs, we examine stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the
comparison market
[[Page 51587]]
sales are at a different LOT and the differences affect price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV
is determined, we will make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT and the data available
do not provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT adjustment, we
will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the
Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62
FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
We did not make an LOT adjustment under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because,
as there was only one home market LOT for each respondent, we were
unable to identify a pattern of consistent price differences
attributable to differences in LOTs (see 19 CFR 351.412(d)). Under 19
CFR 351.412(f), we are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for Dongbu,
HYSCO, and Union because the NV for each company is at a more advanced
LOT than the LOT for their U.S. CEP sales.
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the
August 31, 2007, Calculation Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.;
Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO; and Calculation Memorandum
for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd., of which the public versions
are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Import Administration,
Washington, DC, HCHB Building, Room B-099.
Cost of Production
A. Calculation of COP
We are investigating COP for Dongbu, HYSCO, and Union because
during the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in which
Dongbu, HYSCO, and Union participated, the Department found and
disregarded sales that failed the cost test. We calculated a company-
specific COP for Dongbu, HYSCO, and Union based on the sum of each
respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like
product, plus amounts for home-market selling expenses, selling,
general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs in
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on Dongbu's,
HYSCO's, and Union's information as submitted.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and
administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses. We relied on the
COP information provided by Dongbu in its questionnaire responses,
except for the following instances where the information was not
appropriately quantified or valued:
1. We adjusted Dongbu's reported cost of manufacturing (COM) to
appropriately value the claimed scrap offset.
2. We revised the reported G&A expense ratio to exclude certain
items of exchange gains and losses. In addition, we adjusted the
denominator used to calculate the G&A expense ratio for the adjustment
made above.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum to
Neal Halper entitled, Cost of Production and Constructed Value
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., dated
August 30, 2007.
B. Test of Home-Market Prices
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B)
of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market
sales of the foreign like product and we examined whether (1) within an
extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial
quantities, and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-
specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices (not
including VAT), less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and
rebates.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we may disregard below-
COP sales in the determination of NV if these sales have been made
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and were
not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP for at
least six months of the POR, we determined that sales of that model
were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of
time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act.
Where prices of a respondent's sales of a given product were below the
per-unit COP at the time of sale and below the weighted-average per-
unit costs for the POR, we determined that sales were not at prices
which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of
time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In such
cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.''
We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for Dongbu,
HYSCO, and Union. We disregarded individual below-cost sales of a given
product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV,
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the August 31,
2007, Calculation Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.; Calculation
Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO; and Calculation Memorandum for Union
Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Arm's-Length Sales
Dongbu and HYSCO also reported that they made sales in the home
market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV based on a
sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to
the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made
to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at
arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared
the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers
net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts 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 for
merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated
party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices. See Notice
of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006);
19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we found sales to the
affiliated party that did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to
that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation.
[[Page 51588]]
See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary
Course of Trade, 67 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002).
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
Producer/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu.............................................. 4.96 %
HYSCO............................................... 0.51 %
Union............................................... 4.35 %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19
CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after
the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2)
a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. Case
and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on interested parties
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Further, parties submitting
written comments are requested to provide the Department with an
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a
diskette.
An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due
date of the rebuttal briefs. 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.
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this review. The Department
clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003. See
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy
Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the ``All Others'' rate if there is no rate for the intermediary
involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full
discussion of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that
company's sales during the review period.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
CORE for 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 these reviews, 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 these or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 17.70 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established
in the LTFV. See Orders on Certain Steel from Korea. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 31, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-17756 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S