[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65833-65837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26395]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-274-804]
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Trinidad and
Tobago for the period of review (POR) October 1, 2006, through
September 30, 2007.
We preliminarily determine that during the POR, ArcelorMittal Point
Lisas Limited,\1\ and its affiliate Mittal Steel North America Inc.
(MSNA) (collectively, AMPL) made sales of subject merchandise at less
than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the
final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited is the successor-in-
interest to Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited. See Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 73 FR
30052 (May 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days
after publication of the preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 5, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Jolanta Lawska, 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-
3692 or (202) 482-8362, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and
Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and
Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (Wire Rod Orders). On October 1, 2007,
we published in the Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 72 FR 55741.
We received timely requests for review from petitioners,\2\ and
AMPL, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). AMPL also requested that
the Department revoke the antidumping duty order pursuant to 19 CFR
[[Page 65834]]
351.222(b). On November 26, 2007, the Department published the notice
of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering
the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007, naming AMPL as
the respondent. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 65938
(November 26, 2007). On November 28, 2007, we sent the initial
questionnaire covering sections A through D to AMPL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The petitioners are Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. (formerly
Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.,
North Star Steel Texas, Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut, Inc., and
Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (collectively, petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 4, 2007, petitioners requested that the Department
obtain from AMPL necessary information in order to be able to determine
the proper date of sale and a U.S. sales database that reflects the
proper date of sale.
On February 4, 2008, AMPL submitted its sections A through C
response to the Department's questionnaire. On February 19, 2008, AMPL
submitted its section D response to the Department's questionnaire.
On February 27, 2008, the Department sent AMPL a supplemental
questionnaire for sections A through C. We received the response to the
supplemental questionnaire on March 26, 2008.
The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D on
May 21, 2008, and received the response on June 25, 2008. On August 13,
2008, the Department issued a second supplemental section D
questionnaire, and on August 27, 2008, AMPL submitted its response.
On June 13, 2008, AMPL withdrew its request for revocation of the
antidumping duty order because AMPL, after further analysis, determined
that its estimated dumping margin is greater than de minimis, and hence
it does not satisfy the requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid
cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products
possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for
(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball
bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also
excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that
contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent
or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more
of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent
of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord
quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod
measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional
diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than
70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no
non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable
inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation
per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v)
having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater
than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or
less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the
following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more
of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or
less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or
less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium.
Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire
bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm
in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv)
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade
1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be
deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis--that is,
the direction of rolling--of the rod) over thickness (measured on the
same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is
equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes
of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the
largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a
direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement
methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord
quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
July 24, 2003.
The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use
certification for the importation of such products may be required.
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this
scope.
The products under review are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092,
7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031,
7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090,
7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058,
7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
[[Page 65835]]
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Effective July 1, 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject
merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff--chapters--current/toc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Sales of Damaged Merchandise
During the POR, AMPL had a small volume of subject merchandise that
was damaged during shipment to the United States. According to AMPL,
the original customer refused the defective merchandise, which AMPL
sold ``as is'' in the U.S. market. AMPL did not include these sales in
its questionnaire response; AMPL stated these sales were not reported
because they were outside the ordinary course of trade. However, in a
supplemental questionnaire response, AMPL did provide the relevant
details of the sale, including price and a copy of the invoice.
The statutory provisions concerning ordinary course of trade are
only applicable to the calculation of NV based on home-market sales and
not to the calculation of the constructed export price (CEP) based on
U.S. sales; thus, this is not a basis for excluding these U.S.
transactions. See Notice of Final Results of the Tenth Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea, 70 FR 12443 (March 14, 2005), and accompanying Issues and
Decisions Memorandum at Discussion of Issues--Company-Specific Comment
6. Further, in antidumping duty administrative reviews we are assessing
duties on all entries of subject merchandise. Therefore, we normally
include all sales of subject merchandise during the period.
Accordingly, we have included all sales of subject merchandise to the
United States in the antidumping margin calculations. See Preliminary
Sales Calculation Memorandum for ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited
(Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum), dated October 30, 2008,
which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) at the Department,
Room 1117.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), all products produced by the respondent covered by
the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold in
Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like
product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality,
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade 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 above.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago
were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export
price (EP) or CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and
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 and 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 the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP
for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with
the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made
the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of
the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the
applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to
reflect discounts and increased the prices to reflect billing
adjustments.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland
freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance,
survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses
from arrival to delivery.
For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit and
warranty). In addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that
related to economic activity in the United States. These expenses
include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S.
distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared
AMPL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because AMPL had an
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which
AMPL participated, the Department found that the respondent made sales
in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the
merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
36955, 36957 (July 6, 2007), unchanged in the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 72 FR 62824 (November 7, 2007).
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that AMPL made sales of wire rod in Trinidad and Tobago at
prices below the cost of production (COP) in this administrative
review. As a result, we initiated a COP inquiry for AMPL.
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general, and administrative expenses, packing expenses, and interest
expense. We did not make any
[[Page 65836]]
adjustments to AMPL's submitted COP data.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.
3. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.''
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring
during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made 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.
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded
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.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for
inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In
addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense)
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly
linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to NV were claimed
or allowed.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average
costs.
D. Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction.
In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based
on home market), we consider the starting prices before any
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT and the 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 Act. 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 difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
In the home market, AMPL reported sales made through one LOT
corresponding to one channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, AMPL
reported two LOTs corresponding to two channels of distribution. AMPL
made sales to an unaffiliated trading company and through its U.S.
affiliates. We have determined that the sales made by AMPL directly to
U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by AMPL's affiliated U.S.
resellers constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have found that U.S.
sales and home market sales were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we
did not find it necessary to make an LOT adjustment or CEP offset. For
further explanation of our LOT analysis see the Preliminary Sales
Calculation Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October
1, 2006, through September 30, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Producer/Manufacturer average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPL.................................................... 1.56%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). 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,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs 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 limited
to issues raised in the case briefs may be filed no later than 35 days
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any
such comments on diskette. 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, within
120 days of publication of these preliminary results. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rate
The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the
subject merchandise.
[[Page 65837]]
Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if
any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results
are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess
antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment
rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes,
we calculate importer-specific assessment rates for the subject
merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to
each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the
sales to that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by AMPL for which AMPL did not know
that the merchandise it 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 AMPL, we divided the total
dumping margin by the total net value for AMPL'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
wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago 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 rate for AMPL
will be the rate 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 rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review,
or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the all-others rate established in
the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod Orders. 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 increase the
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of
antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-26395 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P