[Federal Register: November 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 57648-57653]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09no09-31]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 24, 2008, 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, 2007, through
September 30, 2008.
We preliminarily determine that during the POR, ArcelorMittal Point
Lisas Limited, and its affiliate ArcelorMittal International America
LLC (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.
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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure 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-
5973 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 (October 29, 2002) (Wire Rod Orders).
On October 1, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register
the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR
57056 (October 1, 2008).
On October 31, 2008, we received timely request for review from
petitioners,\1\ and AMPL, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On
November 24, 2008, the Department published the notice of initiation of
this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October
1, 2007, through September 30, 2008, naming AMPL as the respondent. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 73 FR 70964 (November 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut
Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries Inc., and Rocky Mountain
Steel Mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2008, we sent the initial questionnaire covering
sections A through D to AMPL. On January 30, 2009, AMPL submitted its
sections A through C response to the Department's questionnaire. On
February 20, 2009, AMPL submitted its section D response to the
Department's questionnaire. On March 19, 2009, the Department sent to
AMPL a supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C. We received
the response to the supplemental questionnaire on April 16, 2009. On
April 30, 2009, petitioners submitted comments on the April 16, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire response from AMPL. On May 14, 2009, the
Department issued a second supplemental section A-C questionnaire, and
on June 4, 2009, AMPL submitted its response. The Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire for section D on June 15, 2009, and received
the response on July 13, 2009. On August 4, 2009, the Department issued
a second supplemental section D questionnaire, and received the
response on August 14, 2009.
On May 7, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative
review from July 3, 2009, to November 2, 2009. See Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Extension of Time Limit
for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping
[[Page 57649]]
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 21330 (May 7, 2009).
Verification
Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, the Department conducted
verifications of the questionnaire response submitted by AMPL in August
and September 2009. See Memorandum to The File, ``Verification of the
Sales Response of ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited in the Antidumping
Review of Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago,''
(November 2, 2009) and ``Verification of the Cost Response of
ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited and ArcelorMittal International
America LLC in the Antidumping Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago,'' (November 2, 2009). The
verification reports are available on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU), Room 1117 of the Department's main building.
On October 20, 2009, the Department received a revised home market
and U.S. market sales database based on minor corrections submitted at
verification as well as verification findings noted in the Memorandum
to The File, ``Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for
ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited,'' (November 2, 2009) (Preliminary
Sales Calculation Memorandum), which is also available in the CRU. On
October 20, 2009, the Department also received a revised cost database
based on minor corrections submitted at the cost verification.
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 merchandise subject to this order are classifiable under
subheadings 7213.91.3000, 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015,
7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091, 7213.91.3092, 721.39.3093,
7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000, 7213.91.6010,
7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090,
7227.20.000, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080,
7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6085,
7227.90.6050, 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 57650]]
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Effective July 1, 2008, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS
numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://
www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0810chgs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Where there were no sales of similar merchandise in the home market
made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to constructed value (CV).
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 constructed export price (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. In accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act, we calculated CV when we were unable to find a
weighted-average price at a time contemporaneous with the U.S. sales.
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.
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,
other transportation expenses, and U.S. customs duties.
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). In
addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to
economic activity in the United States. These expenses include
inventory carrying costs 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, 73 FR
65833 (November 5, 2008), unchanged in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 10722 (March 12, 2009). 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.
a) Based on its contention that the total cost of manufacturing for
wire rod products increased by more than 25 percent during the POR,
AMPL reported its production costs on a quarterly basis. In our June
15, 2009, supplemental D questionnaire, we instructed AMPL to provide
weighted-average POR costs for each CONNUM. We also instructed AMPL to
recalculate the quarterly costs such that only the main input driving
the large cost changes was reported on a quarterly basis, with all
remaining cost elements calculated on an annual average basis. Based on
our evaluation of AMPL's revised quarterly cost file, we found that the
change in the TOTCOM from the lowest quarter for each CONNUM to the
highest quarter for the same CONNUM reflected a change that was below
the 25 percent threshold. Consequently, for the preliminary results we
used the single POR weighted-average annual costs consistent with the
Department's standard practice. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
b) We disallowed AMPL's finished goods inventory adjustment to the
reported costs because the cost of manufacturing of the merchandise
under consideration (i.e., wire rod) must necessarily be derived based
on the POR costs incurred and should not take into account the value of
wire rod in beginning inventory. See Notice of Final Results of the
Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 74 FR 22885 (May
15, 2009), and accompanying
[[Page 57651]]
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
c) We adjusted the reported cost of iron ore to reflect the amount by
which the cost of shipping services exceeded the transfer price paid to
an affiliated supplier for the service.
d) We adjusted the general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio by
disallowing an offset that AMPL took to its G&A expenses for the
collection of a previously written off bad debt.
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
For certain comparisons, 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 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. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. In this review, AMPL
did not have identical or similar comparison market sales at a time
contemporaneous with certain U.S. sales. Accordingly, we based NV for
these comparisons on the CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that
the CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling,
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing
costs. We based SG&A expenses and profit on the actual amounts incurred
and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and
sale of the foreign-like product in the ordinary course of trade for
consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
We relied on the CV data submitted by AMPL with the exception of
the adjustments as noted in the ``Cost of Production Analysis''
section, above. See also, Memorandum to The File, ``Cost of Production
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results - ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited and ArcelorMittal
International America LLC,'' (November 2, 2009).
In addition, we made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For
comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S.
direct selling expenses to, CV.
E. 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,
[[Page 57652]]
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, 2007, through September 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPL................................................ 23.95%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)(1),
the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the
subject merchandise for each respondent. 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.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or
customer)- specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing
this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or
customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an
importer (or customer)- specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
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 respondent 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).
On November 2, 2007, consistent with the Court's decision in Timken
Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990), we published
a notice of a Court's decision not in harmony with the final
determination of injury by the International Trade Commission. See
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Determination of The
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 72 FR 62208 (November 2, 2007). This
notice states that we will suspend liquidation of subject merchandise
entered after July 16, 2007, pending a final and conclusive court
decision. See id. Therefore, liquidation for entries made during the
period October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008, is suspended
pending a final court decision in the case involving the ITC's final
determination of injury.
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 POR.
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.
[[Page 57653]]
Dated: November 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-26943 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S