[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49467-49475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20075]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-831]
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary
Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from Taiwan with respect to 20
companies.\1\ The Department selected Chia Far Industrial Factory Co.,
Ltd. (Chia Far), as the mandatory respondent in this review. The
respondents which were not selected for individual examination are
listed in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice.
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This figure does not include those companies for which the
Department is rescinding the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We preliminarily determine that sales were not made below normal
value (NV). We are also rescinding this review with respect to Emerdex
Group, Emerdex Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc., and Emerdex
Stainless Steel, Inc. (collectively, the ``Emerdex Companies'').
If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 13, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry Almond, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0049.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From
United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999)
(SSSSC Order). On July 1, 2009, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of
this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,
74 FR 31406 (July 1, 2009).
On July 28, 2009, Chia Far submitted a timely request for the
Department to conduct an administrative review of its shipments of
SSSSC made during the POR, in accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On
July 31, 2009, the petitioners \2\ submitted a timely request for the
Department to conduct an administrative review of the sales of SSSSC
made during the POR by the following 23 companies: Chain Chon
Industrial Co., Ltd.; Chia Far; Chien Shing Stainess Co.; China Steel
Corporation; Dah Shi Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.; Emerdex Group; Emerdex
Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc.; Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc.;
Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.; KNS Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Lih
Chan Steel Co., Ltd.; Maytun International Corp.; PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.;
Shih Yuan Stainess Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Ta Chen Stainless Pipe
Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen); Tang
[[Page 49468]]
Eng Iron Works; Tibest International Inc.; Tung Mung Development Co.,
Ltd. (Tung Mung)/Ta Chen; \3\ Waterson Corp.; Yieh Loong Enterprise
Co., Ltd. (aka Chung Hung Steel Co., Ltd.); Yieh Mau Corp.;Yieh Trading
Corp.; and Yieh United Steel Corporation, also pursuant to section
751(a) of the Act, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel
Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local
3303, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville
Armco Independent Organization.
\3\ Regarding Tung Mung/Ta Chen we initiated this review with
respect to merchandise produced by Tung Mung and exported by Ta
Chen. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 42873 n.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2009, the Department published a notice of initiation of
administrative review covering each of these 23 companies. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 42873, 42875 (Aug.
25, 2009) (Initiation Notice). In our initiation notice we indicated
that, in the event we limited the number of respondents for individual
examination, we would select mandatory respondents for review based
upon CBP entry data. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 42874. In this
month we released relevant CBP data to interested parties. Also in this
month we received a statement from China Steel Corporation indicating
that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR.
In September 2009, we received comments on the issue of respondent
selection from the petitioners and Chia Far.
In October 2009, after considering the resources available to the
Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine all
exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review was
requested. See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD
Operations, from Henry Almond, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations,
entitled: ``2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of SSSSC
from Taiwan: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated
October 6, 2009 (Respondent Selection Memo). As a result, we selected
the largest exporter of subject merchandise during the POR, Chia Far,
for individual examination in this segment of the proceeding.
Accordingly, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Chia Far
on October 6, 2009.
In December 2009, we received Chia Far's responses to sections A
through D of the questionnaire.
In February 2010, the Department exercised its discretion to toll
deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government
from February 5, through February 12, 2010. For further discussion, see
Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import
Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated
February 12, 2010.
In March 2010, we issued supplemental questionnaires covering
sections A (i.e., the section related to general information), B and C
(i.e., the sections covering comparison market and U.S. sales,
respectively), and D (i.e., the section covering cost of production
(COP)) of the questionnaire. Chia Far responded to these supplemental
questionnaires in March and April 2010.
In April 2010, we published a notice extending the time limit for
completion of the preliminary results. See Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
17378 (Apr. 6, 2010).
In May 2010, the Department verified the sales data submitted by
Chia Far. We have incorporated our sales verification findings in these
preliminary results. Also in this month we issued an additional
questionnaire regarding section D of the questionnaire.
In July 2010, the Department verified the cost data submitted by
Chia Far.
Period of Review
The POR is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet
and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by
weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of
chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip
is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width
and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise
heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and
strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished,
aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific
dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.
The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings:
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81,
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05,
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36,
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05,
7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36,
7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05,
7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35,
7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10,
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05,
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80,
7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60,
7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60,
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under
the order is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) Sheet
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or
otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3)
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of
4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5
mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain specialty
stainless steel products described below. Flapper valve steel is
defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight,
between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent
molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel
also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon
of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less.
The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with
inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for
oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile
strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength
[[Page 49469]]
of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of
between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to
produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side,
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm
over 685 mm length.
Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent,
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also
excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less,
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such
as Arnokrome III.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the
scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless
steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18
percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its
resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of
1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms
per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most
commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers
and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The
product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as
Gilphy 36.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Gilphy 36 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is
also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering
System as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent
chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and
molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with
phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less.
This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging,
and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate
tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation
percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in
thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This
product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes
and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as
Durphynox 17.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Durphynox 17 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g.,
carpet knives).\7\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold
under proprietary names such as GIN4 Mo. The second excluded stainless
steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight,
carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and
0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of
no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent.
This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles
per 100 square microns. An example of this product is GIN5 steel. The
third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F,
with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between
1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80
percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between
0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This
product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed
after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, GIN6.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This list of uses is illustrated and provided for
descriptive purposes only.
\8\ GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary grades of Hitachi
Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Rescission of Review
The Department finds that it is appropriate to rescind the instant
review with respect to the Emerdex Companies named by the petitioners
in their review request because the Department found in the 2003-2004
administrative review of this order that the Emerdex companies are U.S.
entities. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan:
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 45521, 45524-45525 (Aug. 9, 2006)
unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan;
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 75504 (Dec. 15, 2006). We note that the petitioners in
the instant review have not provided any additional information
demonstrating that the Emerdex companies for which they have requested
a review are located in Taiwan. Consequently, we are rescinding this
review with regard to the Emerdex companies. This treatment is
consistent with the Department's treatment of these companies in the
most recent administrative review of the antidumping order on SSSSC
from Taiwan involving the Emerdex Companies. See Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 43236, 43239
(Aug. 3, 2007) unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 6932, (Feb. 6, 2008).
[[Page 49470]]
Preliminary No Shipment Determination
As noted in the ``Background'' section above, China Steel
Corporation certified to the Department that it had no shipments/
entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR.
The Department subsequently confirmed with CBP the no-shipment claim
made by China Steel Corporation. Because the evidence on the record
indicates that China Steel Corporation did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR, we preliminarily
determine that China Steel Corporation had no reviewable transactions
during the POR.
Since the implementation of the 1997 regulations, our practice
concerning no-shipment respondents has been to rescind the
administrative review if the respondent certifies that it had no
shipments and we have confirmed through our examination of CBP data
that there were no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19,
1997). As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to
liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit rate
in effect on the date of entry.
In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).
Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address,
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any
existing entries of merchandise produced by China Steel Corporation and
exported by other parties at the all-others rate, should we continue to
find that China Steel Corporation had no shipments of subject
merchandise in the POR in our final results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal
From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010). In addition, the
Department finds that it is more consistent with the May 2003
clarification not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances
but, rather, to complete the review with respect to China Steel
Corporation and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the
final results of the review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of
this notice below.
Affiliation
In the 2007-2008 administrative review, the most recently completed
segment of this proceeding, we found Chia Far and Lucky Medsup Inc.
(Lucky Medsup), one of Chia Far's U.S. reseller customers, to be
affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act, which states that, for
purposes of affiliation, ``a person shall be considered to control
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position
to exercise restraint or direction over that person.'' The Department's
regulations further provide that ``{t{time} he Secretary will not find
that control exists on the basis of these factors unless the
relationship has the potential to impact decisions concerning the
production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise or foreign like
product.'' See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3). This affiliation determination was
based on the fact that ``Chia Far is in a position to exercise
restraint or direction over Lucky Medsup and has the potential to have
an impact on Lucky Medsup's decisions regarding sales and pricing.''
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary
Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 39055, 39058 (Aug. 5, 2009) (2007-2008 Preliminary
Results), unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From
Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 5947, 5949 (Feb. 5, 2010) (2007-2008 Final
Results).
Moreover, this affiliation determination in the 2007-2008
administrative review is consistent with the Department's finding in
prior administrative reviews. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Preliminary
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
45393, 45395-45396 (Aug. 5, 2008) unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 74704, 74706 (Dec. 9,
2008) (2006-2007 Final Results); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From
Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682 (Feb. 13, 2002), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 23 (upheld by the Court of
International Trade (CIT) in Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v.
United States, et al., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1356-57 (CIT 2004)). See
also the August 9, 2010, Memorandum to the File from Henry Almond,
Analyst, entitled, ``Placing Information Regarding the Principal-Agent
Relationship between Lucky Medsup Inc. and Chia Far Industrial Factory
Co., Ltd. on the Record of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Taiwan.''
In the present review, Lucky Medsup continues to act as a ``go-
through'' without maintaining inventory, and Chia Far supplied all of
the subject merchandise sold by Lucky Medsup during the POR. Further,
Chia Far has submitted no evidence on the record to demonstrate that
Chia Far is less involved in the transactions between Lucky Medsup and
its customers as found in prior reviews. Therefore, we continue to find
for purposes of these preliminary results that Chia Far is affiliated
with Lucky Medsup because Chia Far is in a position to exercise
restraint or direction over Lucky Medsup and has the potential to have
an impact on Lucky Medsup's decisions regarding sales and pricing.
Identifying Home Market Sales
Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act defines NV as the price at which
the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale,
offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home
market), in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course
of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade
(LOT) as the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP). In
implementing this provision, the CIT has found that sales should be
reported as home market sales if the producer ``knew or should have
known that the merchandise {it sold{time} was for home consumption
based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the
sales.'' See Tung Mung Dev. Co v. United States, 25 CIT 752, 783 (2001)
(quoting INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 251
(CIT 1997)). Where a respondent has no knowledge as to the destination
of subject merchandise, except that it is for export, the Department
will classify such sales as export sales and exclude them from the home
market sales database. See 2007-2008 Preliminary Results, 74 FR at
39058, unchanged in 2007-2008 Final Results, and Final Determinations
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
[[Page 49471]]
Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea, 58 FR 37176,
37182-37183 (July 9, 1993).
In its December 4, 2009, questionnaire response, Chia Far stated
that it shipped some of the SSSSC it sold to home market customers
during the POR to a container yard or it placed the SSSSC in an ocean
shipping container at the home market customer's request. The
Department has preliminarily determined that, based on the fact that
these sales were sent to a container yard or placed in a container by
Chia Far at the request of the home market customer, Chia Far should
have known that the SSSSC in question was not for consumption in the
home market. Therefore, consistent with this determination, the
Department has preliminarily excluded these sales from Chia Far's home
market sales database. This treatment is consistent with our practice
in prior administrative reviews of this order. See, e.g., 2007-2008
Preliminary Results, 74 FR at 39059, unchanged in 2007-2008 Final
Results.
Comparisons to Normal Value
In order to determine whether Chia Far sold SSSSC to the United
States at prices less than NV, we compared the EP and CEP of individual
U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of the foreign
like product made in the ordinary course of trade. See sections
777A(d)(2) and 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act
defines foreign like product as merchandise that is identical or
similar to subject merchandise and produced by the same person and in
the same country as the subject merchandise. Thus, we considered all
products covered by the scope of the order that were produced by the
same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise, and
sold by Chia Far in the comparison market during the POR, to be foreign
like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product
comparisons to SSSSC sold in the United States.
During the POR, Chia Far sold subject merchandise and foreign like
product that it made from hot- and cold-rolled stainless steel coils
(products covered by the scope of the order) purchased from
unaffiliated parties. Chia Far further processed the hot- and cold-
rolled stainless steel coils by performing one or more of the following
procedures: cold-rolling, bright annealing, surface finishing/shaping,
and slitting. We did not consider Chia Far to be the producer of the
merchandise under review if it performed only insignificant processing
on the coils (e.g., annealing, slitting, surface finishing). See
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 74495 (Dec. 14, 2004),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (listing
painting, slitting, finishing, pickling, oiling, and annealing as minor
processing for flat-rolled products). Furthermore, we did not consider
Chia Far to be the producer of the cold-rolled products that it sold if
it was not the first party to cold-roll the coils. The cold-rolling
process changes the surface quality and mechanical properties of the
product and produces useful combinations of hardness, strength,
stiffness, and ductility. Stainless steel cold-rolled coils are
distinguished from hot-rolled coils by their reduced thickness, tighter
tolerances, better surface quality, and increased hardness which are
achieved through cold-rolling. Chia Far's subsequent cold-rolling of
the cold-rolled coils that it purchased may have modified these
characteristics to suit the needs of particular customers; however, it
did not impart these defining characteristics to the finished coils.
Thus, we considered the original party that cold-rolled the product to
be its producer.
Product Comparisons
As described in the ``Normal Value'' section below, we are using a
quarterly costing approach. Therefore, we have not made price-to-price
comparisons outside of a quarter to lessen the distortive effect of
comparing non-contemporaneous sales prices during a period of
significantly changing costs. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise made in the comparison market in the ordinary course of
trade within the same quarter, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the
most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade
within the same quarter. In making product comparisons, we selected
identical and most similar foreign like products based on the physical
characteristics reported by Chia Far in the following order of
importance: grade, hot- or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic
coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
The Department based the price of Chia Far's U.S. sales of subject
merchandise on EP or CEP, as appropriate. Specifically, when Chia Far
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted based
on the facts of the record, we based the price of the sale on EP, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. When Chia Far sold subject
merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States through its
U.S. affiliate, Lucky Medsup, we based the price of the sale on CEP, in
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
We revised Chia Far's reported U.S. sales data to take in account
our findings at verification. For further discussion, see the August 9,
2010, memorandum to the file from Henry Almond entitled, ``Sales
Calculation Adjustments for Chia Far for the Preliminary Results''
(Sales Calculation Memo).
We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling
expenses, international freight expenses, marine insurance expenses,
container handling charges, foreign harbor construction expenses, and
certificate-of-origin fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act.
We based CEP on packed prices sold to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland
freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, container
handling charges, foreign harbor construction expenses, international
freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. duty expenses, U.S.
brokerage and handling expenses, and other U.S. transportation
expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.402(b), we deducted from CEP those selling expenses associated with
economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct
selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses and bank fees) and
indirect selling expenses.
In addition, we deducted from the CEP starting price an amount for
CEP profit (i.e., profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections
772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act), in accordance with sections 772(d)(3)
and 772(f) of the Act. We computed profit by deducting from the total
revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets all
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to the
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and
home markets.
[[Page 49472]]
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
In order 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 the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of
Chia Far's home market sales of the foreign like product is more than
five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject
merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product in the
respondent's home market.
B. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.
See also 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 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to
determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages
in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the
distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution),
including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and
the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home
market or third country prices),\9\ 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 Tech., Inc. v.
United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine
the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive
selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP,
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT
in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally,
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at more advanced stage of
distribution than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining
whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price
comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department
shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the
Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-33.
In this administrative review, we obtained information from Chia
Far regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home
market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling
activities performed by Chia Far for each channel of distribution. Chia
Far reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to distributors,
as well as CEP sales to its affiliate, Lucky Medsup. Chia Far reported
identical selling activities in selling to its unaffiliated U.S.
customers as it did in selling to Lucky Medsup. We examined the selling
activities performed for both channels and found that Chia Far
performed the following types of selling activities equally in selling
to its unaffiliated U.S. customers and to Lucky Medsup: (1) Price
negotiation and communication with the customer (i.e., either its
unaffiliated customers for EP sales, or Lucky Medsup for its CEP
sales); (2) arranging for freight and the provision of customs
clearance/brokerage services (where necessary); and (3) provision of
general technical advice (where necessary) and quality assurance-
related activities. These selling activities can be generally grouped
into four selling function categories for analysis: (1) Sales and
marketing; (2) freight and delivery; and (3) inventory maintenance and
warehousing; and (4) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, we
find that Chia Far performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery
services, and technical support services for U.S. sales. Because the
level of Chia Far's selling activities did not vary by distribution
channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S.
market.
With respect to the home market, Chia Far reported that it made
sales to distributors and end users. We examined the selling activities
performed for home market sales and found that Chia Far performed the
following types of selling activities equally for sales to distributors
and end users: (1) Price negotiation and communication with the
customer; (2) arranging for freight (where necessary); (3) provision of
general technical advice (where necessary) and quality assurance-
related activities, including providing warranty services and rebates;
and (4) post-sale warehousing/processing on request. Accordingly, based
on the selling functions analysis described above, we find that Chia
Far performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services,
warranty and technical support services, and inventory maintenance and
warehousing for home market sales. Consequently, we preliminarily
determine that there is one LOT in the home market for Chia Far.
Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT and found
that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers
do not differ significantly. Specifically, although Chia Far performed
occasional warehousing and post-sale processing functions, as well as
offering warranty services in the home market that it did not perform
on sales to the United States, we do not find these differences to be
material selling function distinctions sufficient to warrant a separate
LOT for purposes of these preliminary results. Thus, we determine that
the NV LOT is the same as the U.S. LOT.
Regarding the CEP-offset provision, as described above, it is
appropriate only if the NV LOT is at more advanced stage of
distribution than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining
whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price
comparability. Because we find that no difference exists between the NV
and CEP LOTs, we do not find that a CEP offset is warranted.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
In the 2006-2007 administrative review, the most recently completed
segment of this proceeding as of the date of initiation of this review,
the Department determined that Chia Far sold the foreign like product
at prices below the cost of producing the product and excluded such
sales from the calculation of NV. See 2006-2007 Final Results, 73 FR at
74706. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to
determine whether Chia Far made home market sales during the POR at
prices below their COPs. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
1. Cost-Averaging Methodology
The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual
weighted-average
[[Page 49473]]
cost for the POR. See, e.g., Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (Dec. 13, 2000),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, and
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (Jan.
24, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5
(explaining the Department's practice of computing a single weighted-
average cost for the entire period).
We recognize that distortions may result if we use our normal
annual-average cost method during a period of significant cost changes.
In determining whether to deviate from our normal methodology of
calculating an annual weighted-average cost, we evaluate the case-
specific record evidence using two primary factors: (1) The change in
the cost of manufacture (COM) recognized by the respondent during the
POR must be significant; (2) sales during the shorter averaging periods
could be reasonably linked with the COP or CV during the same shorter
averaging periods. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
75 FR 6627 (Feb. 10, 2010) (SSSSC from Mexico), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
73 FR 75398 (Dec. 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4 (SSPC from Belgium).
We requested that Chia Far provide pertinent information for the
products with the five highest volumes sold in the home market and the
United States over the twelve months of the POR. Chia Far provided this
information in its June 2, 2010, response.
2. Significance of Cost Changes
In prior cases, we established 25 percent as the threshold (between
the high- and low-quarter COM) for determining that the changes in COM
are significant enough to warrant a departure from our standard annual-
cost approach. See SSPC from Belgium at Comment 4. In the instant case,
record evidence shows that Chia Far experienced significant changes
(i.e., changes that exceeded 25 percent) between the high and low
quarterly COM during the POR and that the change in COM is primarily
attributable to the price volatility of hot-rolled steel, the major
input for SSSSC. For further discussion, see the memorandum from James
Balog, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting,
entitled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculations for
the Preliminary Results--Chia Far,'' dated August 9, 2010 (Cost Memo).
As a result, we have preliminarily determined that the changes in COM
for Chia Far are significant enough to warrant a departure from our
annual costing approach.
3. Linkage Between Cost and Sales Information
The Department's definition of ``linkage'' does not require direct
traceability between specific sales and their specific production costs
but, rather, relies on whether there are elements that would indicate a
reasonable correlation between the underlying costs and the final sales
prices levied by the company. See SSPC from Belgium at Comment 4. These
correlative elements may be measured and defined in a number of ways
depending on the associated industry and the overall production and
sales processes. To determine whether a reasonable correlation existed
between the sales prices and their underlying costs during the POR, we
compared weighted-average quarterly prices to the corresponding
quarterly COM for the five highest volume products sold in each of the
home and U.S. markets. After reviewing this information and determining
that there is a consistent trend of sales and costs throughout the POR,
we preliminarily determine that there is linkage between Chia Far's
changing costs and sales prices during the POR. See the Cost Memo.
Because we have found significant cost changes in COM as well as
reasonable linkage between costs and sales prices, we have
preliminarily determined that a quarterly costing approach leads to
more appropriate comparisons in our antidumping duty calculation for
Chia Far.
4. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each foreign
like product sold by Chia Far during the POR, we calculated a weighted-
average quarterly COP based on the sum of Chia Far's materials and
fabrication costs, G&A expenses, and financial expenses to determine if
Chia Far's home market sales were made at prices below the COP.
For the cost of SSSSC sold by Chia Far in its home market during
the POR, but not produced by Chia Far during the POR, we used, as facts
available, Chia Far's quarterly costs to produce merchandise with
characteristics similar to the merchandise not produced by Chia Far.
The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Chia Far in its
most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, except
in the following instances:
a. Chia Far sold certain models of SSSSC in its home market during
the POR, which it did not produce during the period. As the costs for
these models, we used, as facts available, Chia Far's quarterly costs
reported for the most similar models produced during the POR. For
further discussion, see the Cost Memo and the Sales Calculation Memo.
b. We disallowed Chia Far's reported negative financial expenses.
For further discussion, see the Cost Memo.
5. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices
In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the
COP on a product-specific basis, we compared Chia Far's weighted-
average quarterly COP to the prices of its home market sales of foreign
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less
than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. We compared the COP to home market sales prices, less
any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling
expenses.
6. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of Chia Far's sales of a given product were made at prices less
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Chia Far's sales of a given
product were made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities''
within an extended period of time (i.e., one year) pursuant to sections
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on our comparison of indexed POR
average costs to reported prices, we also determined, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that these sales were not made at
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time. As a result,
[[Page 49474]]
we disregarded the below-cost sales of that product.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We have preliminarily excluded from our calculation of normal value
all of Chia Far's sales to certain of its home market customers on the
basis that these sales were not made in the ordinary course of trade,
in accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 771(15) of the Act.
Specifically, these customers exclusively purchased small, left over
coils resulting from the process of slitting larger coils into specific
lengths and widths for re-sale as scrap, at prices which were similar
to Chia Far's reported per-unit scrap values. When faced with similar
fact patterns, the Department has treated such sales as outside the
ordinary course of trade. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality
Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR 24329, 24341 (May 6, 1999) (where the
Department classified overrun sales as outside the ordinary course of
trade where they were made in small quantities overall, at lower prices
than normal merchandise, and to a small number of customers). For
further discussion, see the June 16, 2010, memorandum from Henry Almond
to the File, entitled ``Verification of the Sales Response of Chia
Far'' at pages 2 and 9-10 and the Sales Calculation Memo.
We based NV for Chia Far on prices to unaffiliated customers in the
home market. We revised Chia Far's reported home market sales data to
take into account our findings at verification. For further discussion,
see the Sales Calculation Memo. We made deductions from the starting
price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments, discounts, and
rebates. We also made deductions from the starting price for foreign
inland freight expenses under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in
circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including imputed
credit expenses, warranties, and other direct selling expenses).
For comparisons to CEP sales, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we deducted from NV
direct selling expenses (i.e., including imputed credit expenses,
warranties, and other direct selling expenses), and indirect selling
expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling
expenses).
For all price-to-price comparisons we also deducted home market
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Finally, we made adjustments for
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical
characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average
dumping margin exists for Chia Far for the period July 1, 2008, through
June 30, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd........................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the Department exercises its discretion to limit the number
of respondents for individual examination pursuant to section
777A(c)(2) of the Act, it is the Department's normal practice to
calculate a review-specific rate for the companies for which the
Department received review requests, but did not individually examine,
based upon the rates calculated for the individually examined
companies, excluding any zero or de minimis margins or any margins
based on total facts available. Where, as here, the only calculated
margins are zero or de mimimis, it is the Department's practice to base
the review-specific rate on calculated rates from prior segments of the
proceeding. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273 (Sept. 9, 2008),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
Accordingly, we have preliminarily based the review-specific rate
on the 4.30 percent in the 2007-2008 administrative review, which is
the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. See 2007-2008
Final Results 75 FR at 5949. This rate is applicable to the following
companies:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd............................... 4.30
Chien Shing Stainess Co...................................... 4.30
China Steel Corporation...................................... (*)
Dah Shi Metal Industrial Co., Ltd............................ 4.30
Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.......................... 4.30
KNS Enterprise Co., Ltd...................................... 4.30
Lih Chan Steel Co., Ltd...................................... 4.30
Maytun International Corp.................................... 4.30
PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.......................................... 4.30
Shih Yuan Stainless Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd................ 4.30
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen)................... 4.30
Tang Eng Iron Works.......................................... 4.30
Tibest International Inc..................................... 4.30
Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd./Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., 4.30
Ltd.**......................................................
Waterson Corp................................................ 4.30
Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd. (aka Chung Hung Steel Co., 4.30
Ltd.).......................................................
Yieh Mau Corp................................................ 4.30
Yieh Trading Corp............................................ 4.30
Yieh United Steel Corporation................................ 4.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.
** This rate applies to shipments of SSSSC produced by Tung Mung in
Taiwan and exported from Taiwan to the United States by Ta Chen.
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit cases briefs not
later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the
final results
[[Page 49475]]
of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of
the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after
the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the
final results of this review.
For Chia Far, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty
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. Consistent with the Department's practice, for the
companies which were not selected for individual review, we will use
the cash deposit rate as the assessment rate for these companies. See,
e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
33409, (July 13, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 3.
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 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. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries
of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for
future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
As noted above, the Department clarified its ``automatic
assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice,
68 FR 23954. This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller,
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the all others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved
in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion
of this clarification.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific
company listed above will be that established in the final results of
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and,
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, or the less-than-fair value (LTFV)
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and, (4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.61 percent, the all
others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See SSSSC Order,
64 FR at 40557. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain
in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review and notice are
issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: August 9, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-20075 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P