[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52267-52272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of the 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 fourteenth administrative
review of the antidumping order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat products (CORE) from the Republic of (Korea). This review covers
seven manufacturers and exporters (collectively, the respondents) of
the subject merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. (LG), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd.
(Haewon), Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk), Dongbu Steel Co.,
Ltd., (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.
(POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, the
POSCO Group); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union). The
period of review (POR) is August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. We
preliminarily determine that during the POR, Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO
Group, and Union, made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal
value (NV). In addition, based on the preliminary results for the
respondents
[[Page 52268]]
selected for individual review, we have preliminarily determined a
weighted-average margin for those companies that were not selected for
individual review. 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), Nucor Corporation (Nucor), and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc.
(Mittal Steel USA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska (Union), Cindy Robinson
(Dongbu), Christopher Hargett (HYSCO) and Victoria Cho (the POSCO
Group, and non-selected companies), 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) 482-3797, (202) 482-4161, and
(202) 482-5075, 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 2, 2007, we published in the
Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 72 FR 42383 (August 2, 2007). On August 31, 2007, respondents
and petitioners requested a review of Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group,
Union, Dongkuk, Haewon and LG. The Department initiated this review on
September 19, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 72 FR
54428 (September 25, 2007).
On December 6, 2007, the Department selected Dongbu, HYSCO, the
POSCO Group and Union as mandatory respondents in this review. See
Memorandum from Christopher Hargett, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, through James Terpstra, Program Manager, to Melissa Skinner,
Director, Office 3, entitled ``2006-2007 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Selection of Respondents for Individual
Review,'' dated December 6, 2007. The Department indicated that it
would calculate a weighted-average of the mandatory respondents'
margins to apply to those companies not selected for individual
examination.
During the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in
which Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union participated,\2\ the
Department disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) that
failed the cost test. 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 December 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 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) (unchanged in 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 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 May 2, 2008, the Department published a notice extending the
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fourteenth
administrative review to September 2, 2008. See Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Extension of
Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 24220 (May 2, 2008).
Dongbu
On January 22, 2008, Dongbu submitted its section A response to the
initial questionnaire. On February 5, 2008, Dongbu submitted its
sections B-D response to the initial questionnaire. On July 14, 2007,
Dongbu submitted its supplemental questionnaire response for sections
A-D.
HYSCO
On February 4, 2008, HYSCO submitted its section A-D response to
the Department's initial questionnaire. HYSCO submitted its responses
to the Department's two section A-D supplemental questionnaires on May
15, 2008, and June 19, 2008, respectively.
The POSCO Group
On February 4, 2008, the POSCO Group submitted its sections A-D
response to the Department's initial questionnaire. On June 10, 2008,
the POSCO Group submitted its sections A-C supplemental questionnaire
responses. The POSCO Group submitted its section D supplemental
questionnaire responses on June 12, 2008, June 18, 2008, and July 29,
2008, respectively.
On August 31, 2007, the POSCO Group requested revocation, in part,
of the antidumping duty order of CORE from Korea with respect to the
POSCO Group. On June 11, 2008, the POSCO Group withdrew its request for
revocation and continued to participate as a mandatory respondent in
this proceeding.
On January 22, 2008, Union submitted its section A response to the
initial questionnaire. On February 4, 2008, Union submitted its
sections B-C response to the initial questionnaire. Union submitted its
response to the Department's sections A-D supplemental questionnaire on
July 16, 2008.
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2006, through July 31,
2007.
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 measure 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 measure 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,
[[Page 52269]]
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.
Collapsing the POSCO Group and Union
On April 9, 2008, U.S. Steel submitted comments asking the
Department to seek additional information regarding the POSCO Group's
and Union's interest in each other's company. We have received
additional information from the POSCO Group and Union. Based on our
analysis of the facts of this case and the evidence on the record, we
will treat the POSCO Group and Union as separate entities for these
preliminary results. While the POSCO Group and Union are affiliated
pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, we have determined that the
criteria for 19 CFR 351.401(f) have not been satisfied. Therefore, for
these preliminary results, the Department will not collapse the POSCO
Group and Union. Due to the proprietary nature of this issue, see the
collapsing memo.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the Department's September 2, 2008, Memorandum from the
Team to Melissa Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
titled, ``Whether to Collapse the Antidumping Duty Order with
Respect to Subject Merchandise Produced and Exported by Pohang Iron
& Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS)
(collectively, the POSCO Group); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co.
Ltd. (Union)'' (the collapsing memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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.
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 accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland
freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign
brokerage, handling and loading charges, export duties, international
freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, warehousing,
and U.S. duties.
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated EP for
a number of Union's and HYSCO's U.S. sales because these sales were
made before the date of importation and were sales directly to
unaffiliated customers in the United States, and because CEP
methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on the packed and/
or delivered duty paid prices to unaffiliated customers in the United
States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included, where appropriate,
foreign inland freight from the mill to the U.S. border, inland freight
from the border to the customer or warehouse, and U.S. brokerage and
handling. We adjusted for direct expenses (credit expenses) in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP
sales where the record established that sales made by Dongbu, HYSCO,
the POSCO Group, and Union were made in the United States after
importation. Dongbu's, HYSCO's, the POSCO Group's, and Union'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. Thus, where appropriate, the Department has
determined that these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP
transactions under section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we
also 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
[[Page 52270]]
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. See section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 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 demonstrates that there were sufficient imports of imported
raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on the exports
of the manufactured product. See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate
Film, Sheet and Strip From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 44086, 44087 (August 7, 2007)
(unchanged in Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip
from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73
FR 7252 (February 7, 2008)); see also section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
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 its June 19, 2008
submission, 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.
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.
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. See 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2); see also HYSCO's Second
Supplemental Sections A-C Response, dated June 19, 2008, at S-6. 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),
and EP sales through an unaffiliated trading company.
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, we find that there is a reasonable
quantity of sales of identical or other subject merchandise to an
unaffiliated person. See ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,''
dated September 2, 2008. Further, another reasonable method for
determining CEP for the HAC CEP sales is not evident. In this case,
HYSCO reported that the value added after importation is very large and
the further manufacturing very complex. See HYSCO's Second Supplemental
Sections A-C Response, dated June 19, 2008, at S-6. Therefore,
consistent with the previous administrative review of CORE from Korea,
and similar to our practice in other cases,\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72
FR 51584, 51587 (September 10, 2007) (unchanged in Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Thirteenth Administrative
Review, 73 FR 14220 (March 17, 2008); Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 28676 (May 22,
2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
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
[[Page 52271]]
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 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, the POSCO Group, 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
September 2, 2008, ``Calculation Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co.,
Ltd;'' ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO;'' ``Calculation
Memorandum for the POSCO Group;'' and ``Calculation Memorandum for
Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.;'' the public versions of which are
on file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department
building.
Cost of Production
A. Calculation of COP
We are investigating COP for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and
Union because during the most recently completed segments of the
proceeding in which Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union
participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that failed
the cost test for each of these companies. We calculated company-
specific COPs for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, 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. See ``Test of Home
Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home market
selling expenses.
We relied on the COP data as submitted by Dongbu, HYSCO, and Union.
We also relied on the COP data submitted by the POSCO Group except in
the calculation of G&A expense ratios for POSCO and POCOS.
Specifically, we disallowed the gains related to trading securities as
offsets to G&A expenses in the calculation of POSCO's G&A expense rate
and, for POCOS, we disallowed the gains on tangible assets and the
gains related to available for sale securities as offsets to the G&A
expenses. See Memorandum from Frederick W. Mines to Neal M. Halper,
Director Office of Accounting, titled ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
POSCO,'' dated September 2, 2008.
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, the POSCO Group, 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 September 2, 2008, ``Calculation Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co.,
Ltd.''; ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO''; ``Calculation
Memorandum for the POSCO Group''; and ``Calculation Memorandum for
Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.''
Arm's-Length Sales
Dongbu, HYSCO, and the POSCO Group 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)
(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
[[Page 52272]]
14, 2007)); and 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.
See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary
Course of Trade, 67 FR 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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu....................................................... 1.91
HYSCO........................................................ 1.17
The POSCO Group.............................................. 0.79
Union........................................................ 1.90
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following
Companies: \6\
LG, Haewon, and Dongkuk.................................. 1.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated
for those companies selected individual review, excluding de minimis
margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available.
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 the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by the
respondent for which it has reported the importer of record and the
entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for
U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for
the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount
by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad
valorem rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without
regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate
is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue
assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after 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). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the respondents for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
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 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: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-20920 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P