Notices. Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

17,884 words·~81 min read·/register/2004/09/07/04-20250·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-816] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the tenth administrative review of the antidumping order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products

(CORE)from Korea. 1 This review covers three manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise: Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union), Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. (POSCO), Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS), and Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd.

(PSI)(collectively, the POSCO Group), and Dongbu Steel Corporation, Ltd. (Dongbu). The period of review

(POR)is August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. In response to a request from Hyundai Hysco (HYSCO), the Department is also conducting a new-shipper review. The POR for the new-shipper review is August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. 1 Petitioners are the International Steel Group. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Union, the POSCO Group, Dongbu, and HYSCO did not make sales of the subject merchandise at less than normal value

(NV)( *i.e.* , sales were made at “zero” or *de minimis* dumping margins). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Furthermore, we rescinded the request for review of the antidumping order for SeAH Steel Corporation

(SeAH)because neither SeAH nor its affiliates had exports or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. For more information, see *Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 25059 (May 5, 2004) ( *Partial Rescission of CORE* ). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding should also submit with them:

(1)a statement of the issues and

(2)a brief summary of the comments. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Young (Union), Carrie Farley (Dongbu), Lyman Armstrong (the POSCO Group), and Joy Zhang (HYSCO), AD/CVD Enforcement, Office III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6397,

(202)482-0395,

(202)482-3601, and

(202)482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping order on CORE from Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Caron Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea* , 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993) ( *Orders on Certain Steel from Korea* ). On August 1, 2003, we published in the **Federal Register** the notice of *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 68 FR 45218. On August 29, 2003, petitioners requested reviews of the POSCO Group, SeAH, Dongbu, Dongshin Special Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongshin), and Union. The Department initiated these reviews on September 30, 2003. *See, Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review* , 68 FR 56262. On August 29, 2003, HYSCO requested a new shipper review. On October 3, 2003, the Department initiated this review. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review* , 68 FR 57423. During the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in which SeAH, Dongbu, Union, and the POSCO Group participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that failed the cost test. 2 Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by these companies of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). Therefore, we instructed SeAH, Dongbu, Union, and the POSCO Group to fill out sections A-D of the initial questionnaire, which we issued on October 3, 2003. 3 2 *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Certain Corld-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products from Korea* , 67 FR 11976 (March 18, 2002) (7th Review of CORE from Korea). 3 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise Section B: Comparison Market Sales Section C: Sales to the United States Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value On January 2, 2004, petitioners alleged that HYSCO made sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review at prices below COP. On January 20, 2004, the Department rejected petitioners' COP allegation. *See* the Department's January 20, 2004, letter from the Department to petitioners, a public document on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)room B099 in the main Commerce building. On January 22, 2004, petitioners submitted revised COP allegations. On February 3, 2004, HYSCO rebutted petitioners' COP allegation. On March 29, 2004, the Department initiated a COP investigation of HYSCO. *See* the Department's March 29, 2004, memorandum, the public version of which is available in the CRU. Therefore, we issued a section D questionnaire to HYSCO on April 5, 2004. On March 4, 2004, the Department published an extension of preliminary results of the administrative review, extending the preliminary results until August 30, 2004. 4 *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 10203. 4 As a result of a typographical error, the Department published the extended preliminary signature date as September 1, 2004. The actual signature date is August 30, 2004. On March 24, 2004, the Department published an extension of preliminary results of the new shipper review, extending the preliminary results until July 22, 2004. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 69 FR 13812. On April 15, 2004, the Department aligned the new shipper review with the current administrative review, further extending the preliminary results of the new shipper review until August 30, 2004. *See Memorandum to the File from Paul Walker, re: Request for Alignment of Annual and New Shipper Reviews* , a public document on file in the CRU. 5 5 The memorandum states that September 1, 2004, is the new date for the preliminary results; however, the correct date for the preliminary results of the administrative and new shipper reviews is August 30, 2004. SeAH On May 5, 2004, the Department rescinded the review of SeAH because neither SeAH nor its affiliates had exports or sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. *See Partial Rescission of CORE* . On June 22, 2004, the Department published a correction regarding its rescission of the review of SeAH. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 34646, in which the Department addressed a comment from petitioners that it inadvertently failed to address in the March 4, 2004, rescission notice. Upon review of petitioners' additional comment, the Department determined to continue to rescind the review of SeAH. *Id* . at 34647. Dongshin On October 24, 2003, the Department confirmed that Dongshin received the initial questionnaire. *See* the October 24, 2003, memorandum to the file containing the shipping receipt indicating that Dongshin had received the initial questionnaire, a public document on file in the CRU. On November 7, 2003, the Department sent a letter to Dongshin inquiring whether it intended to respond to the Department's initial questionnaire. Dongshin failed to respond to the Department's attempts to contact it and failed to respond to the initial questionnaire. Dongbu On November 10, 2003, Dongbu submitted its section A response. On December 5, 2003, Dongbu submitted its sections B through D response. On May 3, 2004, Dongbu submitted its supplemental questionnaire response for sections A through D. On August 6, 2004, Dongbu submitted an additional supplemental questionnaire response. Union On November 10, 2003, Union submitted its section A response. On December 5, 2003, Union submitted its sections B through D response. On April 2, 2004, Union submitted its supplemental questionnaire response. On July 23 and July 30, 2004, Union submitted its second and third supplemental questionnaire responses, respectively. The POSCO Group On November 19, 2003, the POSCO Group submitted its section A response. On December 12, 2003, the POSCO Group submitted its sections B through D response. On April 14, 2004, the POSCO Group submitted its supplemental questionnaire response for sections A through C. On May 17, 2004, the POSCO Group submitted its supplemental questionnaire response for section D. HYSCO On November 21, 2003, HYSCO submitted its section A response and its importer questionnaire response. On December 12, 2003, HYSCO submitted its section B through D response. On January 16, 2004, HYSCO submitted its supplemental section A responses. On February 13, 2004, HYSCO submitted its supplemental questionnaire response for sections B and C. On April 23, 2004, HYSCO submitted questionnaire responses to sections A through D of the Department's questionnaire. On July 1, 2004, HYSCO submitted its 2003 consolidated and unconsolidated financial statements of Hyundai Pipe of America (HPA), HYSCO's U.S. affiliated company. On July 20, 2004, HYSCO submitted a supplemental questionnaire response to section D. Petitioners' Request for Revision to the Model Match Criteria In their May 28, 2004, submission, petitioners requested that the Department refine its model match criteria to reflect the actual sales and pricing practices undertaken by Dongbu, Union, and POSCO during the POR. Petitioners claim that the Department's model match criteria currently is based on a design from the underlying investigation that no longer reflects the sales and pricing practices of the Korean respondents. Thus, petitioners request that the Department obtain the Korean respondents' actual product specifications—actual thickness, width, etc.—so that real product comparisons can be made rather than comparisons based on classifications provided by the companies. In their June 7, 2004, submission, Dongbu and Union object to petitioners' request for revisions to the model match criteria. Dongbu and Union assert that their current internal pricing guidelines are the same as those used by the Department in the underlying investigation to establish the original matching criteria. They further argue that the Department's established policy dictates that it refrain from revising model match criteria absent evidence of a change in the norms of the industry under review. The Korean respondents contend that the internal pricing guidelines on which petitioners' argument relies fail to constitute sufficient evidence of a change in industry norms. The Department has determined not to alter the model match criteria in this segment of the proceeding. For further discussion of the this issue, see the August 27, 2004, memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement III, to Melissa G. Skinner, Office Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement III, of which the public version is available in the CRU. Period of Review The POR for these reviews is August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. These reviews cover entries from Dongshin, Dongbu, Union, the POSCO Group, and HYSCO. Scope of the Reviews These reviews cover flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS)under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in these reviews are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”) for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from these reviews are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from these reviews are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from these reviews are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Verification The Department is determining which of the three Korean respondents (Union, Dongbu, and the POSCO Group) involved in the administrative review it will verify. Further, in keeping with its current practice regarding new shipper reviews, the Department intends to verify the questionnaire responses submitted by HYSCO. All verifications undertaken in the administrative reviews and new shipper review will be conducted after the publication of the preliminary results. Parties will be given the opportunity to comment on the Department's verification findings in their case and rebuttal briefs. Use of Partial Facts Available The Department has determined preliminarily that the use of partial facts available is appropriate for purposes of determining the preliminary dumping margin for subject merchandise sold by Union. Specifically, the Department has applied partial facts available for various expenses and adjustments with respect to the comparison margin program for Union. *See* Union's August 31, 2004, Preliminary Calculation Memorandum (Union's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;

(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.” In its section B-D response at section B, page 14, Union reported its inland freight charge for certain home market sales as “freight equalized” ( *i.e.* , Union splits the freight charge with the customer based on a freight schedule). However, upon closer examination of the home market database and sample documentation submitted by Union, it appears that Union reported the entire freight amount, including the amount paid by the customer. As long recognized by the Court of International Trade (CIT), the burden is on the respondent, not the Department, to create a complete and accurate record. *See Pistachio Group of Association Food Industries* v. *United States* , 641 F. Supp. 31, 39-40 (CIT 1987). In its narrative questionnaire response, Union indicated that the total inland freight amount, for certain home market sales, is allocated to the customer and Union based on a fee schedule that it provided. However, as noted above, it appears that in the home market database Union incurred the total cost of the inland freight. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we are applying partial facts otherwise available in calculating Union's dumping margin. As facts available, the Department used the sample documentation that illustrates the freight split as provided in Exhibit 21 of Union's April 2, 2004, submission as a basis for determining the freight paid by Union. *See* Union's Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. Use of Adverse Facts Available In accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department has determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for purposes of determining the preliminary antidumping duty margins for the subject merchandise sold by Dongshin. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides: If an interested party

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administrating authority;

(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and the manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or

(C)of the Act. Moreover, the Department finds that Dongshin failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability by not submitting a questionnaire response; accordingly, the Department is using an inference that is adverse to Dongshin in the preliminary results pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)provides that “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870

(1994)and 19 CFR 351.308(d). However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it does not question the reliability of the margin for that time period. *See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July 11, 1996). With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's rate that was uncharacteristic of the industry, resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D & L Supply Co.* v. *United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated); *see also F. Lii De Cecco di Filippo* v. *U.S.* , 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, for Dongshin we have resorted to adverse facts available and have used the all others rate in effect for this order (17.70 percent) 6 , which is the highest margin upheld in this proceeding, as the margin for these preliminary results because there is no evidence on the record indicating that such a margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available. *See Orders on Certain Steel from Korea.* 6 The all others rate was a calculated rate based on the weighted-average margin for Pohang Iron and Steel, the sole respondent in the investigation of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea. *See Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea* , 58 FR 37176 (July 9, 1993); *see also Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea* , 58 FR 41083 (August 2, 1993). The Department considered using the higher rate we calculated for Dongbu in the fifth administrative review of this proceeding; however, we found that rate to be inappropriate because it was based upon duty absorption. *See Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea* , 65 FR 24180 (April 25, 2000). Transactions Reviewed for the POSCO Group For these preliminary results, we have accepted the POSCO Group's reporting methodology for overruns and have excluded reported overrun sales in the home market from our sales comparisons because such sales were outside the ordinary course of trade. 7 This is consistent with the methodology we accepted in prior reviews. *See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 47163, 47166 (September 11, 2001) ( *Preliminary Results of the 7th Review of CORE from Korea* ). Based on its questionnaire response, we have adopted the same approach with respect to overrun sales made by Union. 7 For purposes of this proceeding, overrun sales are those products which have not been sold within 90 days of production or those products which were produced for export but were, in fact, sold to the domestic market. Affiliated Parties For purposes of these reviews, we are treating POSCO, POCOS, and PSI as affiliated parties and have “collapsed” them, *i.e.* , treated them as a single producer of CORE, within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). We refer to the collapsed respondent as the POSCO Group. We note that the POSCO Group was treated as collapsed in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. *See Preliminary Results of the 7th Review of CORE from Korea* , 66 FR at 47166-47167. The POSCO Group has submitted no information to warrant reconsideration of that determination. In past reviews, we have taken the same approach with respect to Union and Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (DKI). *Id* . However, based on information submitted by Union, we have preliminarily determined not to collapse Union and DKI. For further information, see the August 27, 2004, memorandum from Mark Young, Senior Analyst, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement III, and Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement III, to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement III re: Collapsing. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all CORE products produced by the respondents and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to CORE sold in the United States. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent. Where sales were made in the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. market (theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the respondents, before making our fair-value comparisons. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CORE by the respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price/Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Date of Sale It is the Department's practice normally to use the invoice date as the date of sale, although we may use a date other than the invoice date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). We have preliminarily determined that there is no reason to depart from the Department's treatment of invoice date as the date of sale for Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and Union. Consistent with prior reviews, for home market sales, we used the reported date of the invoice from the Korean manufacturer; for U.S. sales we have followed the Department's methodology from prior reviews, and have based date of sale on invoice date from the U.S. affiliate, unless that date was subsequent to the date of shipment to the unaffiliated customer from Korea, in which case that shipment date is the date of sale. *See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Preliminary Results* , 65 FR 54197, 54201 (September 7, 2000) ( *Preliminary Results of the 8th Review of CORE from Korea* ), and *Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 66 FR 3540 (January 16, 2001) ( *8th Review of CORE from Korea* ). Consistent with the Department's practice, we have used shipment date as date of sale for HYSCO because shipment date occurred prior to invoice date. *See Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 621, (January 6, 2004). *See also Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada* , 68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. Export Price/Constructed Export Price We calculated the price of U.S. sales based on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. The Act defines the term “constructed export price” as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections

(c)and (d).” In contrast, “export price” is defined as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States.” Sections 772(a) and

(b)of the Act. In determining whether to classify U.S. sales as either EP or CEP sales, the Department must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the U.S. sales process, and assess whether the reviewed sales were made “in the United States” for purposes of section 772(b) of the Act. In the instant case, the record establishes that Dongbu's, the POSCO Group's, Union's, and HYSCO's affiliates in the United States

(1)took title to the subject merchandise and

(2)invoiced and received payment from the unaffiliated U.S. customers. Thus, the Department has determined that these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP transactions. For Dongbu, the POSCO Group, Union, and HYSCO we calculated CEP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. warehousing expenses, U.S. wharfage, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, loading expenses, other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S. customs duties, commissions, credit expenses, letter of credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the country of manufacture and the United States associated with economic activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. Where appropriate, we added interest revenue to the gross unit price. In order to ensure that we have accounted for all appropriate U.S. interest expenses ( *i.e.* both imputed and actual) without double-counting, we have utilized the following interest expense methodology. As in the prior review, in the U.S. indirect selling expenses, we have included net financial expenses incurred by the respondent's U.S. affiliates; however, we added U.S. interest expenses only after deducting U.S. imputed credit expenses and U.S. inventory carrying costs, so as to eliminate the possibility of double-counting U.S. interest expenses. 8 8 *See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review of Cold-Rolled (“CR”) and Corrosion- Resistant (“CORE”) Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea* , from Joseph A. Spetrini to Faryar Shirzad, Comment 1, (March 11, 2002), on file in the CRU. Consistent with the Department's normal practice, we added the reported duty drawback to the gross unit price. We did so in accordance with the Department's long-standing test, which requires:

(1)that the import duty and rebate be directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another; and

(2)that the company claiming the adjustment demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of imported raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on the exports of the manufactured product. *See Preliminary Results of the 8th Review of CORE from Korea* , 65 FR at 54202. Normal Value Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, discounts, inland freight (offsets, where applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and packing. Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for credit expenses (offset, where applicable, by interest income), warranty expenses, post-sale warehousing, and differences in weight basis. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home market indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs to offset U.S. commissions. We also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale observation resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of manufacturing

(COM)of the U.S. product, we based NV on constructed value (CV). *See* 19 CFR 351.411. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit. Pursuant to section 351.412 of the Department's regulations, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the comparison-market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect 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 will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). Specifically in this review, we did not make an LOT adjustment for any respondent. We are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for the POSCO Group and Dongbu. However, we did not grant a CEP offset for Union or HYSCO because we determined that NV LOT was not more advanced than the CEP LOT. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the company-specific calculation memoranda, all on file in the CRU. Cost of Production/Constructed Value As explained above, at the time the questionnaires were issued in the administrative review, the seventh administrative review was the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, and consistent with the Department's practice, because we disregarded certain below-cost sales by Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and Union in the seventh review, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that these respondents made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. *See* the *7th Review of CORE from Korea* and the *Preliminary Results of the 7th Review of CORE from Korea* , 66 FR at 47168. We, therefore, initiated cost investigations with regard to Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and Union in order to determine whether these respondents made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As stated above, we have also initiated a COP investigation of HYSCO. Before making concordance matches, we conducted the COP analysis described below. A. Calculation of COP We calculated a company-specific COP for Dongbu, the POSCO Group, Union, and HYSCO based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market selling expenses, SG&A, and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on Dongbu's, the POSCO Group's, and Union's information as submitted. B. Test of Home-Market Prices For Union, we used each respondents' weighted-average COP, as adjusted (see “Calculation of COP” above), for the period July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003, as reported. The COP and CV figures for the POSCO Group and Dongbu were calculated based on costs incurred by the companies during the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, as reported, for CORE products. We calculated HYSCO's COP and CV based on HYSCO's actual costs of manufacturing the subject merchandise for the POR, August 2002 through July 2003. We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we examined whether

(1)within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and

(2)such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-market prices (not including VAT), less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. C. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” 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 that sales of that model were made in “substantial quantities” for an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, and were not at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In such cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, for Dongbu, Union, the POSCO Group, and HYSCO, for purposes of these preliminary results, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. *See* the company-specific calculation memoranda, the public versions of which are on file in the CRU. D. Calculation of CV In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, including interest expenses, U.S. packing costs, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 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 foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home-market selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in CEP comparisons. Arm's Length Sales The POSCO Group reported sales of the foreign like product to an affiliated reseller/service center. Dongbu and HYSCO also reported that they made sales in the home market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, *i.e.* , sales at arm's length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-length prices. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. *Id.* Currency Conversion For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in effect on the date of sale of subject merchandise in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a “fluctuation.” In accordance with the Department's practice, we have determined, as a general matter, that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. *See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 8915, 8918 (March 6, 1996) and Policy Bulletin 96-1: *Currency Conversions* , 61 FR 9434, (March 8, 1996). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business days. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of these reviews, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist: Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Dongbu 0.27 (De Minimis) Union 0.27 (De Minimis) The POSCO Group 0.41 (De Minimis) HYSCO 0.00 (De Minimis) The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will announce the due date of the case briefs at a later date. Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. 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. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due date of the rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where appropriate, to calculate the entered value, we subtracted international movement expenses ( *e.g.* , international freight) from the gross sales value. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of certain pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of these reviews, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* , the cash deposit will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior review, or the original less than fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the underlying investigation. *See Orders on Certain Steel from Korea.* These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice 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. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 30, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2085 Filed 9-3-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-803] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Rescind in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from a domestic interested party (International Steel Group, Inc.), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania. The period of review is August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. With regard to two Romanian companies, producer Ispat Sidex, S.A. (Sidex) and exporter Metalexportimport, S.A. (MEI), we preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). With regard to CSR SA Resita

(CSR)and MINMET, S.A. (MINMET), we are giving notice that we intend to rescind this review based on record evidence that there were no entries into the United States of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). For a full discussion of the intent to rescind with respect to CSR and MINMET, *see* the “Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part” section of this notice below. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue(s), and

(2)a brief summary of the argument(s). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Barnett-Dahl, Brandon Farlander, and Abdelali Elouaradia at

(202)482-3833,

(202)482-0182, and

(202)482-1374, respectively; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 1, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania, 68 FR 45218 (August 1, 2003). On August 29, 2003, the Department received a timely request from the International Steel Group, Inc. (ISG), a domestic interested party, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate shipments exported to the United States from the following Romanian plate producers/exporters during the period of August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003:

(1)Sidex,

(2)MEI,

(3)CSR, and

(4)MINMET. On September 30, 2003, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania, for the period covering August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003, to determine whether merchandise imported into the United States is being sold at less than NV with respect to these four companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review* , 68 FR 56262 (September 30, 2003) ( *Administrative Review Initiation* ). On October 24, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the four above-referenced Romanian companies. Because Romania graduated to market economy status on January 1, 2003, the POR is divided into both a non-market economy

(NME)portion (August 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002) and a market economy

(ME)portion (January 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003). 1 On October 30, 2003, MINMET submitted a letter stating that it has never shipped subject merchandise to the United States, including during the POR. On November 12, 2003, CSR stated that it has not produced or sold subject merchandise since 1972, and thus did not have any shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 1 In *Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 12672, 12673 (March 17, 2003), the Department reviewed the non-market economy status of Romania and determined to reclassify Romania as a market economy for purposes of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, pursuant to section 771(18)(A) of the Act, effective January 1, 2003 ( *Romanian graduation* ). *See* Memorandum from Lawrence Norton, Import Policy Analyst, to Joseph Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Romania—Non-Market Economy Status Review (March 10, 2003). On November 7, 2003, we instructed CSR and Sidex that an NME questionnaire response was required for the entire POR for Sections A, C, and D, and a ME questionnaire response was required for Sections A, B, C, D, and E for January 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003. On November 21, 2003, we received Section A ME responses from Sidex and MEI. 2 On November 24, 2003, we received Section A NME responses from Sidex and MEI. On December 22, 2003, Sidex and MEI jointly filed a combined NME Section C response. 3 On December 22, 2003, Sidex filed a ME Section B response and MEI stated, in this same filing, that MEI did not have any home market

(HM)sales during the ME portion of the POR and, thus, would not be filing a Section B response. On December 22, 2003, Sidex and MEI jointly filed a Section C ME response. Also, on December 22, 2003, Sidex and MEI jointly filed a Section C NME response. Finally, on December 22, 2003, Sidex filed a Section D NME response. 2 MEI stated on page 13 of its Section A ME response that it is a commissioned agent and, on page 2, that it only sold in the United States subject merchandise produced by Sidex during the POR. 3 Sidex and MEI filed a joint Section C NME response. On December 30, 2003, IPSCO Steel Inc. (IPSCO), a domestic interested party, filed deficiency comments on Sections B through D of the questionnaire responses for Sidex and exporter MEI. On December 31, 2003, ISG filed deficiency comments on Sections B through D of the questionnaire responses for Sidex and MEI. On January 6, 2004, IPSCO filed deficiency comments on Section D of Sidex's NME response. On January 7, 2004, we invited interested parties to comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production of comparable merchandise in the potential countries, and to submit publicly-available information to value the factors of production. On January 13, 2004, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Sidex. On January 27, 2004, we received a partial supplemental questionnaire response from Sidex. On February 11, 2004, we received Sidex's supplemental questionnaire response for the remaining questions. On January 16, 2004, ISG filed a letter regarding the most appropriate surrogate country. On January 23, 2004, Sidex filed a letter regarding the most appropriate surrogate country. On January 30, 2004, Sidex filed rebuttal comments on ISG's January 16, 2004, letter regarding the most appropriate surrogate country. On February 18, 2004, ISG filed deficiency comments on Sidex's and MEI's questionnaire responses. On February 27, 2004, ISG filed additional comments regarding the most appropriate surrogate country. On March 11, 2004, the Department fully extended the preliminary results of this proceeding until August 30, 2004. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania* , 69 FR 11593 (March 11, 2004). On April 26, 2004, the Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire to Sidex and MEI. On April 30, 2004, ISG filed two surrogate value submissions. On May 5, 2004, ISG filed additional surrogate value data. On May 17, 2004, we received Sidex's second supplemental questionnaire response. On May 25, 2004, the Department issued its third supplemental questionnaire to Sidex and MEI. On May 28, 2004, and June 7, 2004, the Department spoke with counsel for Sidex and asked Sidex additional questions to be answered in Sidex's third supplemental questionnaire response. 4 On June 4, 2004, Sidex and MEI filed a joint partial response to the Department's third supplemental questionnaire. On June 14, 2004, Sidex and MEI filed a joint complete response to the Department's third supplemental questionnaire. On June 15, 2004, Sidex and MEI jointly filed an amended factors of production database. On June 16, 2004, Sidex and MEI jointly filed an amended imported and domestic material database. On August 2, 2004, and August 11, 2004, ISG submitted pre-preliminary results comments. On August 3, 2004, August 4, 2004, and August 5, 2004, Sidex submitted surrogate value data. On August 9, 2004, Sidex submitted new databases (HM ME, U.S. ME, U.S. NME, NME factor of production (FOP)) in response to the Department's request for certain corrections to these databases as a result of verification corrections and findings. Also, on August 9, 2004, the Department requested that Sidex submit its SG&A and interest expense ratios to enable the Department to calculate cost of production, which will be used for the constructed export price

(CEP)profit calculation. On August 10, 2004, ISG and Sidex submitted proposed surrogate values. On August 11, 2004, Sidex submitted proposed surrogate values. On August 11, 2004, IPSCO filed pre-preliminary results comments. On August 12, 2004, Sidex submitted its selling, general and administrative (SG&A) and interest expense ratios. On August 16, 2004, ISG submitted proposed surrogate values. On August 20, 2004, Sidex submitted proposed surrogate values and, on August 25, 2004, ISG submitted rebuttal comments. 4 *See ex-parte* meeting memoranda to the file dated May 28, 2004 and June 7, 2004. Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in Part Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. The Department explained this practice in the preamble to the Department's regulations. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties,* 62 FR 27296, 27317 (May 19, 1997) (“Preamble”); *see also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002) and *Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001). As discussed above, on October 30, 2003, MINMET submitted a letter stating that it has never made shipments of subject merchandise to the United States, including during the POR. On November 12, 2003, CSR stated that it has not produced or sold subject merchandise since the year 1972 and, thus, did not have any shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. To confirm CSR's and MINMET's statements of no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, on August 5, 2004, the Department conducted a customs inquiry and determined to our satisfaction that there were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily intends to rescind this review as to CSR and MINMET. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered in this review include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( *i.e.,* flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.,* products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.307 of the Department's regulations, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of Sidex, MEI, and Sidex's U.S. affiliate, Ispat North America (INA). We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of Sidex's production facility. Our verification results are outlined in the following two memoranda:

(1)Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of U.S. Sales and Factors of Production Information Submitted by Ispat Sidex S.A. (Sidex) and Metalexportimport S.A. (MEI), dated August 2, 2004 (Sidex/MEI Verification Report); and

(2)Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of U.S. Sales Information Submitted by Ispat North America Inc. (INA), dated August 2, 2004 (INA Verification Report). Public versions of these reports are on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. *The following sections refer to the NME portion of the POR (August 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002).* Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to its export activities. In this review, both Sidex and MEI requested separate, company-specific rates. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes the exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) ( *Sparklers* ), and *amplified* by the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585, 22586-22587 (May 2, 1994) ( *Silicon Carbide* ). The Department's separate-rate test is unconcerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls ( *e.g.,* export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,* 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and *Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,* 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995). Both Sidex and MEI provided separate-rate information in their responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether the export activities of MEI, who was the exporter of record for all of Sidex's U.S. sales, were independent from government control ( *see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China,* 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)). We also performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether the export activities of Sidex were independent from government control. Sidex De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers,* 56 FR at 20589. Sidex has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure control* , including Law No. 15/1990 ( *State-Owned Enterprise Restructuring* ), Law No. 31/1990 ( *Company Law* ), the Law No. 26/1990 ( *Trade Registry Law* ), Emergency Ordinance 88/1997, with amendments becoming Law 99/1999 ( *Privatization of Commercial Companies* ), Government Ordinance No. 70/1994, approved by Law No. 73/1996 and amended and completed by Law No. 106/1998 ( *Corporate Income Tax Law* ), and Ordinance No. 92/1997, approved by Law No. 241/1998 ( *Equal Treatment for Foreign Investors in the Privatization Process* ). *See* Exhibit 3 of Sidex's November 24, 2003, submission. Sidex is a private joint stock commercial company organized under the Law on Restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises, Law No. 15/1990 and the Romanian Commercial Companies Law, Law No. 31/1990, as amended. These Romanian laws provide Sidex with the right to establish business organizations for the purpose of conducting any lawful commercial activity, including the export of subject merchandise, provided that the company registers with the government. 5 Sidex's business license ( *i.e., Certificat de Inregistrare* or Certificate of Registration) certifies completion of all formalities required for registration with the government. 6 This license does not limit the scope of the activities of the company, 7 but it may be revoked if the company violates Romanian law. The activities of Sidex are limited only by its own articles of incorporation, bylaws, or equivalent documents, which establish the scope of Sidex's business activities. Sidex stated that its scope of activity is broad in that it can do any number of activities related to the sale of hot-rolled steel and other products, including exporting. There are no export licenses required or granted by the government, and the company's license does not allow any special entitlements. 8 5 The Commercial Law No. 15/1990 remains the primary corporate law in Romania. This law, however, has been amended by other laws such as Law No. 31/1990 (Company Law) and Law No. 58/1991 (Privatization Law). 6 *See* Exhibit 4 of Sidex's November 24, 2003 Section A NME response. 7 *See* pages 6 and 7 of Sidex's November 24, 2003 Section A NME response. 8 *See* page 6 of Sidex's November 24, 2003 Section A NME response. As noted above, Sidex has submitted copies of Law No. 15/1990, Law No. 26/1990, Law No. 31/1990, Ordinance No. 70/1994, and Ordinance No. 92/1997. These enactments are the fundamental laws authorizing the privatization of commercial companies and establishing the legal regime applicable to commercial companies. We note that Emergency Ordinance 88/1997, amended and completed by Law No. 99/1999, established a new framework for the privatization process and Sidex stated that, prior to its own privatization, it participated in some or all of these privatization procedures, or in procedures regulated by previous privatization laws. Sidex stated that it was privatized effective November 16, 2001, when LNM Holdings N.V. and the Romanian Authority for Privatization and Administration of State Ownership (APAPS) finalized the purchase by LNM Holding N.V. of the majority share capital of Sidex. We confirmed the ownership percentages for Sidex's owners at verification and found no evidence of government control. *See* Sidex/MEI Verification Report at 12-13. Moreover, the results of verification support the information provided regarding these Romanian laws. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de jure* control over Sidex's export activities. De Facto Control Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:

(1)Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority;

(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;

(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22587. Sidex has asserted the following:

(1)It is a private joint stock commercial company that is independent from government control;

(2)it sets its U.S. prices for its export price

(EP)sales by arm's-length, direct negotiations with the U.S. customers and MEI, and such prices consider the company's costs, profit, and competition;

(3)it sets its U.S. prices for its CEP sales based on market conditions and that Sidex's U.S. affiliate, INA, negotiates its prices for these sales;

(4)regardless of whether the U.S. sale was an EP or CEP transaction, there is no government participation in the setting of its prices;

(5)its Export Sales Manager, as well as other officials, are authorized to sign export-related contracts on its behalf;

(6)it does not have to obtain government approval of its management selection, although it is required to notify the Registry of Trade of any changes that occur at the top management level, providing the Registry of Trade with an updated list of the company's legal representatives (administrators and general director);

(7)there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue, and the General Assembly of Shareholders decides how profits will be used; and

(8)it is not required to sell any portion of foreign currency earned to the government. Our analysis of the responses during verification reveals no other information indicating the existence of government control. *See* Sidex/MEI Verification Report at 13. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over the company's export activities, we preliminarily determine that Sidex has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. MEI De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers,* 56 FR at 20589. MEI has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure control,* including Law No. 15/1990 ( *State-Owned Enterprise Restructuring* ), Law No. 31/1990 ( *Company Law* ), the Law No. 26/1990 (Trade Registry Law), Emergency Ordinance 88/1997, with amendments becoming Law 99/1999 ( *Privatization of Commercial Companies* ), Government Ordinance No. 70/1994, approved by Law No. 73/1996 and amended and completed by Law No. 106/1998 ( *Corporate Income Tax Law* ), and Ordinance No. 92/1997, approved by Law No. 241/1998 ( *Equal Treatment for Foreign Investors in the Privatization Process* ). *See* Exhibit 3 of Sidex's November 24, 2003, submission. MEI is a joint-stock commercial company organized under the Romanian Commercial Companies Law, Law No. 31/1990, as amended. This Romanian laws provides MEI with the right to establish business organizations for the purpose of conducting any lawful commercial activity, including the export of subject merchandise, provided that the company registers with the government. 9 MEI's business license ( *i.e., Certificat de Inregistrare* or Certificate of Registration) certifies completion of all formalities required for registration with the government. 10 This license does not limit the scope of the activities of the company, 11 but it may be revoked if the company violates Romanian law. The activities of MEI are limited only by its own articles of incorporation, bylaws, or equivalent documents, which establish the scope of MEI's business activities. MEI stated that its scope of activity is broad in that it can do any number of activities related to the sale of steel and other products, including exporting. There are no export licenses required or granted by the government, and the company's license does not allow any special entitlements. 12 9 The Commercial Law No. 15/1990 remains the primary corporate law in Romania. This law, however, has been amended by other laws such as Law No. 31/1990 (Company Law) and Law No. 58/1991 (Privatization Law). 10 *See* Exhibit 3 of MEI's November 24, 2003 Section A NME response. 11 *See* pages 7 and 8 of MEI's November 24, 2003 Section A NME response. 12 *See* page 8 of MEI's November 24, 2003 Section A NME response. As noted above, MEI has submitted copies of Law No. 15/1990, Law No. 26/1990, Law No. 31/1990, Ordinance No. 70/1994, and Ordinance No. 92/1997. These enactments are the fundamental laws authorizing the privatization of commercial companies and establishing the legal regime applicable to commercial companies. MEI stated that at the first stage of privatization, on May 31, 1993, 63.81 percent of the company's shares were sold mostly to the company's employees and that, currently, MEI is 100 percent privately owned by existing and former employees and by the management of MEI. We confirmed the ownership percentages for MEI's owners at verification and we found no evidence of government control. Moreover, the results of verification support the information provided regarding these Romanian laws. *See* Sidex/MEI Verification Report at 30-31. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de jure* control over MEI's export activities. De Facto Control Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:

(1)Whether the export prices are set by, or subject to the approval of, a governmental authority;

(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;

(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and

(1)It is a joint-stock company that is independent from government control;

(2)it sets its U.S. prices via direct negotiations with its customers (except for companies affiliated with Sidex), and such prices consider the company's costs, market demands, and market conditions, and MEI notes that there is a commission agreement between itself and Sidex for the sales it makes on behalf of Sidex;

(3)there is no government participation in its setting of its prices;

(4)its General Director and three Executive Directors have the authority to approve export sale contracts;

(5)it does not have to have government approval of its management selection but it does notify the government of changes;

(6)there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and

(7)it is not required to sell any portion of foreign currency earned to the government. Our analysis of the responses during verification reveals no other information indicating the existence of government control. *See* Sidex/MEI Verification Report at 31, where the Department reviewed a sales contract between Sidex and MEI and we found no evidence government officials were involved in the contract or negotiations or in the exchange of currency. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over MEI's export activities, we preliminarily determine that MEI has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether Sidex's sales of the subject merchandise from Romania to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Because Romania has been graduated to a market economy country ( *see Romanian graduation,* 68 FR at 12673), consistent with the effective date of that graduation, January 1, 2003, we have employed a non-market economy

(NME)methodology to calculate NV for the period covering August 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002, and a market economy methodology for the period covering January 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003. Thus, there are two NV sections below. Export Price and Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections

(c)and (d). For purposes of this administrative review, Sidex has classified its sales as both EP and CEP. Sidex identified two channels of distribution for U.S. sales:

(1)Sidex to MEI to unaffiliated steel traders who typically sell to resellers and end-users; and

(2)Sidex to MEI to INA and then to unaffiliated U.S. customers, who are distributors. For U.S. sales channel one ( *i.e.,* Sidex/MEI sales to an unaffiliated U.S. customer), we based our calculation on EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or for export to the United States prior to importation, and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP on the packed, delivered, tax and duty paid price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses ( *i.e.,* U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and survey), and U.S. customs duty. For U.S. sales channel two ( *i.e.,* Sidex/MEI/INA sales to an unaffiliated U.S. customer), Sidex/MEI has reported these sales as CEP sales because the first sale to an unaffiliated party occurred in the United States. Therefore, for these channel two sales, we based our calculation on CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and

(1)the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and

(2)available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the factors of production to determine NV for Sidex. *See* Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 30, 2004 (Factor Valuation Memo). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations. We determine that Egypt, Algeria, and the Philippines

(1)are comparable to Romania in its level of economic development, and

(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. However, we have selected Egypt as the primary surrogate country and our first choice for surrogate values. If we cannot find a surrogate value in Egypt because the Egyptian data is either unavailable or unusable, we selected surrogate values from the Philippines and Algeria and, as explained in the Factor Valuation Memo, there are steel producers in both the Philippines and Algeria. Accordingly, we valued the factors of production using publicly-available information from primarily Egypt but also the Philippines and Algeria. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our practice. *See, e.g., Honey From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 25060 (May 5, 2004) and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; and *Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,* 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. Where appropriate, we adjusted Egyptian (or the relevant surrogate country) import prices by adding foreign inland freight expenses to make them delivered prices. When we used Egyptian (or the relevant surrogate country) import values to value inputs sourced domestically by Romanian suppliers, we added to the Egyptian (or the relevant surrogate country) surrogate values an Egyptian surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest port of export to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by Romanian suppliers, we based freight for inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier to the site at which the input was used. *See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 69988, 69992 (December 16, 2003). When we relied on Egyptian (or the relevant surrogate country) import values to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NMEs and countries deemed to have generally available export subsidies ( *i.e.,* Indonesia, Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. For those surrogate values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price indices for Egypt (or the relevant surrogate country), as published in the International Monetary Fund's publication, *International Financial Statistics* . For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for Sidex, including market-economy inputs, *see* the Factor Valuation Memo. We valued the factors of production as follows: Pursuant to section 351.408(c)(1) of our regulations, we used the actual price paid by respondents for inputs purchased from a market-economy supplier and paid for in a market-economy currency, except when prices may have been distorted by subsidies. Thus, we used market-economy input prices for the following material inputs: coking coal, iron ore powder, iron pellets, iron lumps, sulfuric acid, ferromanganese, ferrosilicon, silicomanganese, ferrovanadium, ferrochrome, nickel, ferromolybdenum, ferroboron, calcium flouride, and slab. We used Egyptian import statistical data for 2002 from the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), the Egyptian government's official statistical agency, to value the following material inputs: manganese ore, metallurgical coke, iron scrap, caustic soda, aluminum, and lime. We used Filipino import data for 2002 from the World Trade Atlas

(WTA)to value the following material inputs: scale, slag, petroleum coke, ferrotitanium, and silicocalcium. To value limestone, we used Filipino import statistics for 2001 from the WTA because the 2002 data is aberrational for Egypt, the Philippines and Algeria. In addition, for limestone, we inflated this data to make the data contemporaneous with the POR. For energy, we used an Egyptian electricity source from 2001 and we inflated this data to make the data contemporaneous with the POR. For methane gas, we used Filipino import data from WTA for 2002. For injected coal powder, we used Egyptian import data from CAPMAS for 2002. For labor, we used the Romanian regression-based wage rate at Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003. *See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* . Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the *Year Book of Labour Statistics 2001,* International Labour Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. For by-products, we valued ammonium sulfate, crude benzene, and raw tar using Egyptian import data for 2002 from CAPMAS. For the remaining by-products (ammonia water, iron slag, coke gas, and furnace gas), we used Filipino import data from the WTA for 2002. Consistent with the final results of petroleum wax candles from China, we limited the by-product credit to the amount actually produced and sold during the POR and not the amount sold during the POR, since Sidex reported that for several by-products, it sold more of the by-product than it produced during the POR. *See Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 12121, 12125 (March 15, 2004). Hence, we are adjusting Sidex's factors of production downward for the by-products in which Sidex reported these factors based on the sales quantity (which was more than the production quantity) and capping the factor based on the amount sold/produced during the POR. To value packing materials ( *i.e.,* wooden boards and steel straps or wire rod), we relied upon Egyptian import data from CAPMAS and Filipino import data from WTA for 2002, respectively. To value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, we relied upon publicly-available information in the 2002-2003 annual report of the Egyptian Iron & Steel Co. (Egyptian Iron), an integrated steel producer of subject merchandise in Egypt. Consistent with Department practice, we are using the financial statement for calculation of the overhead and SG&A (with interest) ratios of an integrated steel producer (Egyptian Iron) as a surrogate because Sidex is also an integrated steel producer and the experiences of Egyptian Iron are more reflective of Sidex's business experiences than of a non-integrated steel producer. *See Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 12672 (March 17, 2003) and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (where the Department stated that it is inappropriate to use the financial statement of fully integrated steel producer Al Ezz because Al Ezz's business experiences, which were more capital intensive and had different raw material and energy requirements, differed from respondent Silcotub, which is not an integrated steel producer). However, Egyptian Iron did not make a profit in the 2002-2003 period. Because it is the Department's practice to use a profit rate, we are using the profit rate from the financial statement of a non-integrated Egyptian steel producer (El Nasr Steel Pipes and Fittings Co.) for our calculations. *See Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 25545 (May 7, 2004) (where the Department used the financial statement of Asahi India Safety Glass Limited for the profit ratio because Saint-Gobain Sekurit India Limited, whose financial statement the Department used to calculate factory overhead and SG&A, incurred a loss during this time period). To value truck freight rates, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for inflation) provided by a trucking company located in Egypt. For rail transportation, we valued rail rates in Egypt using information used in *Titanium Sponge from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 64 FR 66169 (November 24, 1999), which were initially obtained from a 1999 letter from the Egyptian International House. To value barge rates, we are using the truck rate because we do not have any surrogate value barge rates on the record of this proceeding. For domestic brokerage and handling incurred in Romania, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for inflation) provided by a trucking and shipping company located in Alexandria, Egypt. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. For details on factor of production valuation calculations, *see* Factor Valuation Memo. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations based on the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. *The following sections refer to the ME portion of the POR (January 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003).* Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the “Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order” section above, which were produced and sold by Sidex in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We relied on eight characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of preference):

(1)Painting;

(2)quality;

(3)specification and/or grade;

(4)heat treatments;

(5)standard thickness;

(6)standard width;

(7)whether or not checkered (floor plate); and

(8)descaling. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. *See* Appendix V of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to Sidex dated October 24, 2003. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether Sidex's sales of the subject merchandise from Romania to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Because Romania has been graduated to a market economy country ( *see Romanian graduation,* 68 FR at 12673), consistent with the effective date of that graduation, January 1, 2003, to calculate NV, we have employed a non-market economy methodology for the period covering August 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 and a market economy methodology for the period covering January 1, 2003 through July 31, 2003. Thus, there are two NV sections in the notice. For the ME methodology, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we compared the export prices (or constructed export prices) of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade. Export Price and Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections

(c)and (d). For purposes of this administrative review, Sidex has classified its sales as both EP and CEP. Sidex identified two channels of distribution for U.S. sales:

(1)Sidex to MEI to unaffiliated steel traders who typically sell to reseller and end-users; and

(2)Sidex to MEI to INA and then to unaffiliated U.S. customers, who are distributors. For U.S. sales channel one ( *i.e.,* Sidex/MEI sales to unaffiliated steel traders), we based our calculation on EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or for export to the United States prior to importation, and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP on the packed, delivered, tax and duty paid price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses ( *i.e.,* U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and survey), and U.S. customs duty. For U.S. sales channel two ( *i.e.,* Sidex/MEI/INA sales to an unaffiliated U.S. customer), Sidex/MEI has reported these sales as CEP sales because the first sale to an unaffiliated party occurred in the United States. Therefore, for these channel two sales, we based our calculation on CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and

(d)of the Act. Where applicable, we made a deduction to gross unit price for early payment discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses ( *i.e.,* U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and survey), and U.S. customs duty. Also, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we deducted packing expenses because packing expenses are included in CEP. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.,* imputed credit expenses, commissions, and bank expenses) and indirect selling expenses. For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to 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. Normal Value Using ME Methodology As discussed above, consistent with the January 1, 2003 effective date of ME graduation, we have applied a ME methodology for the period covering January 1, 2003 through July 31, 2003. 1. Home Market Viability We compared the aggregate volume of HM sales of the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product sold in Romania was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis for NV. Because the volume of HM sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based the determination of NV upon the HM sales of the foreign like product. Thus, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Romania, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP or CEP sales, as appropriate. After testing home market viability, we calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. 2. Arm's-Length Test Sidex reported that it made sales in the HM to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. The Department did not require Sidex to report its affiliated party's downstream sales because these sales represented less than five percent of total HM sales. Sales to affiliated customers in the HM not made at arm's length were excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings—Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). 3. Price-to-Price Comparisons We based NV on the HM to unaffiliated purchasers and those affiliated customer sales which passed the arm's length test. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses ( *i.e.,* inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse and warehousing expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for imputed credit and interest revenue, where appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C). In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted HM packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Where applicable, we modified the gross unit price based on billing adjustments. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where the Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of contemporaneous matches in accordance with 773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV on CV. We did not make any adjustments to Sidex's reported HM sales data in the calculation of NV. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We note that although MEI was the exporter for all of Sidex's sales, because Sidex provided information that it had knowledge that the subject merchandise was destined for the United States, we have calculated a margin for both Sidex as the producer and MEI as the exporter. We preliminarily determine that the following margin is the weighted-average antidumping duty margin of all sales made in both the NME and ME portions of the POR: Manufacturer/exporter POR Margin (percent) Ispat Sidex, S.A. 08/01/02—07/30/03 33.19 Metalexportimport, S.A. 08/01/02—07/30/03 33.19 For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for Sidex and MEI, *see* the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 30, 2004. A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU. Assessment Rates Pursuant to section 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total quantity of the sales to that importer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the total quantity for the subject merchandise on each of Sidex's importer's/customer's entries during the POR. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)For subject merchandise exported by MEI or Sidex, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 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 covered 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, a prior review, or the original less than fair value

(LTFV)investigation ( *see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania,* 58 FR 37209 (July 9, 1993)), but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent period 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 the “all others” rate described in the final results of this review. We invite comments on the value to be used for the “all others” rate. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. We note that the cash deposit rate established in the final results of this review will be applied prospectively to cover future entries. Given that the effective date of the Department's decision to treat Romania as an ME was within the POR, we have applied both NME and ME methodologies to calculate the antidumping margins in this review. The Department is considering whether it is more appropriate to base MEI's and Sidex's cash deposit rate on a weighted-average margin calculated using only sales from the seven-month ME portion of the POR or, alternatively, a weighted-average margin calculated using all sales from both the NME and ME portions of the POR. We invite comments on this issue. Schedule for Final Results of Review The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain:

(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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. This administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 30, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-2080 Filed 9-3-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lehman or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0180 and

(202)482-1690, respectively. Amendment of Final Results In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on July 26, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued its notice of final results of antidumping duty new shipper reviews of fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC). 1 On August 2, 2004, we received a timely ministerial-error allegation from Sunny Import & Export, Ltd. (Sunny), pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2). On August 3, 2004, we received comments from the petitioners (the Fresh Garlic Producers Association and its individual members) concerning the final margin calculations for the Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (Dong Yun). No other party alleged ministerial errors or submitted comments. 1 See *Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 69 FR 47498 (August 3, 2004) ( *Final Results* ). After analyzing the submissions, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made a ministerial error in our calculation of the number of days Sunny's garlic was held in cold storage. Correcting this error resulted in a revised antidumping margin for Sunny. For a detailed discussion of this ministerial error, see the August 31, 2004, memorandum from Susan Lehman to the file entitled “Ministerial Error Allegation in the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Sunny Import & Export, Ltd.” We have determined that the issues the petitioners raised in their comments concerning Dong Yun are not ministerial errors as described under section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), and, therefore, have not made any changes to the *Final Results* with respect to Dong Yun. See the August 31, 2004, memorandum from Lyn Johnson to the file entitled “Comments on the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd.” Pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the *Final Results* for Sunny. The revised antidumping margin is as follows: Producer & Exporter Original final margin (percent) Amended final margin (percent) Sunny Import and Export, Ltd. 33.66 13.81 Duty Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. With respect to Sunny, the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the amended final results of review. Further, the following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these amended final results of review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these amended final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)For subject merchandise grown and exported by Sunny Import and Export, Ltd., the cash-deposit rate will be the rate listed above;

(2)for all other subject merchandise exported by Sunny Import and Export, Ltd., the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate, which is 376.76 percent;

(3)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise (including merchandise produced and/or supplied by Sunny Import and Export, Ltd.) which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 376.76 percent;

(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. With respect to Dong Yun, the duty assessment and cash deposit requirements remain the same (see the *Final Results* at 69 FR 46500). The amended final results are issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 04-20250 Filed 9-3-04; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

CFR