Rules and Regulations. Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

Agency: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Action: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Mexico for the period of review (“POR”) April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Hylsa Puebla, S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsa Puebla”) and Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de C.V., and its affiliate, CCC Steel GmbH (“CCC Steel”), collectively (“SICARTSA”) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price (“EP”) and NV. 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. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic version of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The due date of the case briefs and the date of the hearing (if required) will be announced at a later date. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Young or Tipten Troidl at (202) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1767, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945. On October 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 56618. By October 31, 2003, we had received requests for review from petitioners, 1 SICARTSA, and Hylsa Puebla and its parent company Hylsamex, S.A. de C.V. (“Hylsamex”), 2 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). 1 The petitioners are Gerdau Ameristeel U.S., Inc., Georgetown Steel Co., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. 2 Hylsa Puebla is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hylsa, S.A. de C.V., which in turn is wholly-owned by Hylsamex, a Mexican holding company. On January 7, 2004, Hylsamex stated that it did not produce subject merchandise and it did not have any sales of subject merchandise to customers in the United States or Mexico during the review period. As a result Hylsamex withdrew its request for a review during the current review period. On November 28, 2003, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 68 FR 66799 (November 28, 2003) (“ Initiation Notice ”). During the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which SICARTSA participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that failed the cost test. 3 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 SICARTSA 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 initiated a cost investigation of SICARTSA, and instructed the company to fill out sections A-D 4 of our initial questionnaire which was issued on December 9, 2003. SICARTSA submitted its response, in toto, by January 30, 2004. 3 The most recently completed segment in which SICARTSA participated was the investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico 67 FR 55800 (August 30, 2002) ( “Wire Rod from Mexico” ). 4 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 February 18, 2004, petitioners submitted a sales-below-cost allegation against Hylsa Puebla. We determined that petitioners' cost allegations provided a reasonable basis to initiate a COP investigation of Hylsa Puebla's sales. See the company-specific COP initiation memorandum, dated February 25, 2004, in the case file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), main Commerce building, room B-099. Also, on February 27, 2004, we informed Hylsa Puebla that it was required to respond to section D of the antidumping questionnaire. See letter from the Department to Hylsa Puebla requiring a section D questionnaire response, dated February 27, 2004, in the CRU. On March 31, 2004, Hylsa Puebla submitted its response to the section D questionnaire. On June 14, 2004, the Department published an extension of preliminary results for this review, extending the preliminary results until October 30, 2004. 5 See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago: Extension of Preliminary Results of 2002/2003 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews , 69 FR 32979 (June 14, 2004). 5 Since the due date falls on a Saturday, the actual signature date is November 1, 2004. On September 9, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental section A-C questionnaire to SICARTSA. On September 24, 2004, we issued the company a supplemental section D questionnaire. We received SICARTSA's response to the section A-C supplemental questionnaire on September 15, 2004, and a response to the section D supplemental questionnaire on October 8, 2004. On September 16, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental section A-C questionnaire to Hylsa Puebla. On October 8, 2004, we issued the company a supplemental section D questionnaire. We received the response to Hylsa Puebla's section A-C supplemental questionnaire on October 7, 2004, and a response to the section D supplemental questionnaire on October 22, 2004. Scope of Review Effective July 24, 2003, in accordance with the Department's Notice of Final Result of Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, and Intent To Revoke Orders in Part , 68 FR 64079 (November 12, 2003), the scope of this order was amended. Therefore, for purposes of this review, there were separate scopes in effect. These scopes are set forth below. Scope of Order from October 29, 2002, through July 23, 2003 The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e. , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Scope of Order from July 24, 2003, through the POR The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e. , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 6 6 Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff—chapters—current/toc.html. Verification The Department intends to verify the questionnaire response submitted by Hysla Puebla, as this company was not included in the less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the “Scope of Review” section, above, and sold in Mexico during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product or constructed value (“CV”): grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. Where there were no sales of the foreign like product in the home market suitable for matching to the subject merchandise, we used constructed value as the basis for normal value. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of wire rod from Mexico were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as described in the “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. See the company-specific calculation memoranda, available in the CRU. Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We based EP on the packed cost-insurance-freight (“CIF”), ex-factory, free-on-board (“FOB”), or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect discounts and rebates. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign brokerage, handling and loading charges, export duties, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to the customer). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because each respondent had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for all producers. B. Arm's-Length Test SICARTSA and Hylsa Puebla reported sales of the foreign like product to an affiliated end-user and an affiliated reseller. The Department calculates the 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. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Both Hysla and SICARTSA had sales that did not pass the arm's-length test and were excluded from the NV calculation. C. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of COP Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of SICARTSA and Hylsa Puebla, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the respondents' comparison market sales were made below the COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the respondents' information as submitted. In the investigation we found that for iron ore and lime, major inputs in wire rod production, the affiliates' average COP exceeded the transfer price SICARTSA paid to its affiliated suppliers. In the current review, we also preliminarily find that the affiliates' average COP exceeded the transfer price SICARTSA paid for those inputs. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(f)(3) of the Act, we applied the major input rule and adjusted SICARTSA's reported cost of manufacturing to account for purchases of iron ore and lime from affiliated parties at non-arm's length prices. We were unable to compare the transfer price for iron ore to a market price as there were no unaffiliated purchases or sales. See October 8, 2004 supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 8. We therefore, adjusted SICARTSA's reported COM to reflect the higher COP. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for SICARTSA and Hylsa Puebla, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the company-specific calculation memoranda on file in the CRU for our calculation methodology and results. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, warehousing, inland insurance, and discounts. We added interest, freight, and other revenue ( i.e. , Mexican and U.S. brokerage and handling, and duty charged to customer) where applicable. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance of sale (“COS”) adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses, advertising, warranty expenses, commissions, bank charges, and billing adjustments, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, the “commission offset.” Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department's regulations. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. Sales of wire rod purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same manner described above in the “Export Price” section of this notice. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value When we could not determine the NV based on comparison market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable product, we compared the EP to CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of manufacturing (“COM”) of the product sold in the United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred by SICARTSA in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the comparison market. For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. F. 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 EP 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 SG&A expenses 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. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the calculation memoranda, all on file in the CRU. Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) SICARTSA 1.82 Hylsa Puebla 7.27 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 wire rod from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis , the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 20.11 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod From Mexico , 67 FR 55800, at 55801. 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: November 1, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3070 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-274-804] Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Trinidad and Tobago for the period of review (“POR”) April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Carribean Ispat Limited and its affiliates Ispat North America Inc. (“INA”) and Walker Wire (Ipsat), Inc. (“Walker Wire”) (collectively “CIL”), sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) and NV. 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. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic version of the public version of any such comments on diskette. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-3965, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945. On October 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 56618. We received timely requests for review from petitioners, 1 and CIL, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 28, 2003, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003, naming CIL as the respondent. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 68 FR 66799 (November 28, 2003). On December 9, 2003, we sent a questionnaire to CIL. 2 1 The petitioners are Co-Steel Raritan, Inc., GS Industries, Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. 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 Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or Assemble Performed in the United States During the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which CIL participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that failed the cost test. 3 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 CIL 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 initiated a cost investigation of the respondent, and instructed it to fill out section D upon issuance of the initial questionnaire. 3 The most recently completed segment in which CIL participated was the investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago , 67 FR 55788 (August 30, 2002) ) (“ Final Determination ”). CIL submitted its responses to the Department's questionnaire on January 12, 2004, January 30, 2004, and February 13, 2004. On February 23, 2004, and March 19, 2004, the petitioners submitted comments on CIL's questionnaire response. On June 14, 2004, the Department published an extension of preliminary results of this review, extending its preliminary results until October 30, 2004. 4 See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago: Extension of Preliminary Results of 2002/2003 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews , 69 FR 32979 (June 14, 2004). 4 Since the due date falls on a Saturday, the actual signature date is November 1, 2004. On August 16, 2004, the Department issued a section A-E supplemental questionnaire to CIL. We received the response to the supplemental questionnaire on September 21, 2004. On October 5, 2004, the Department received petitioners' comments on CIL's response to the Department's August 16, 2004, supplemental questionnaire. On October 15, 2004, we received a response from CIL regarding the petitioners' October 5, 2004, comments. On October 8, 2004, the Department received a reconciliation of CIL's home market and U.S. sales database to its income statements. On October 15, 2004, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to further clarify the sales reconciliation. CIL submitted its response on October 22, 2004. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order Effective July 24, 2003, in accordance with the Department's Notice of Final Result of Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, and Intent To Revoke Orders in Part , 68 FR 64079 (November 12, 2003), the scope of this order was amended. Therefore, for purposes of this review, there were separate scopes in effect. These scopes are set forth below. Scope of Order from October 29, 2002, through July 23, 2003 The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04- 114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Scope of Order from July 24, 2003, through the POR The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e. , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 5 5 Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/toc.html. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of Review section, above, and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. As we did in the investigation, we excluded a small percentage of CIL's U.S. sales because the merchandise was damaged. See Final Determination . When there were no appropriate comparison market sales of comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United States to constructed value (“CV”), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect discounts. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance, survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses from arrival to delivery incurred by INA, where appropriate. For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, and cleaning and coating). In addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. For certain sales, CIL did not report payment dates because payment is still pending. For those sales for which payment has not yet been received, we set the payment date equal to the date of the preliminary results. We recalculated CIL's imputed credit expenses using the revised payment dates, where applicable, and the gross unit price adjusted for pricing adjustments. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared CIL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because CIL had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of COP Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of CIL, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the respondent's comparison market sales were made below the COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on CIL's information as submitted. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. 3. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Caribbean Ispat Ltd., dated November 1, 2004, on file in the Central Records Unit, room B099, for our calculation methodology and results. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for foreign inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense and warranty) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, warranty, and cleaning and coating expenses directly linked to sales transactions). For comparisons made to CEP sales, we did not add U.S. direct selling expenses. No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department's regulations. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value When we could not determine the NV based on comparison market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable product, we compared the EP to CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of manufacturing of the product sold in the United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred by CIL in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the comparison market. For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales. E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP transactions, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from CIL about the marketing stages involved in the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by CIL for each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs for EP and home market sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. In the home market, CIL reported sales to end-users as its only channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, CIL reported sales through two channels of distribution, one involving sales made directly by CIL to end-users and, occasionally, trading companies, and the second involving sales made by CIL's affiliated U.S. resellers to end-users. We have determined that the sales made by CIL directly to U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by CIL's affiliated U.S. resellers constitute CEP sales. We found the home market and EP sales to be at the same LOT. CIL's EP sales and home market sales were both made primarily to end-users. In both cases, the selling functions performed by CIL were almost identical in both markets. Other than freight & delivery arrangement, which was only provided for U.S. sales, and sales force development, which was only provided in the home market, in both markets CIL provided services such as: strategic and economic planning, sales forecasting, solicitation of orders, technical advice, price negotiation, processing purchase orders, invoicing, extending credit, managing accounts receivable, and making arrangements for warranty related to sales. It was therefore unnecessary to make an LOT adjustment for comparison of EP and home market prices. CIL makes CEP sales to the United States through its affiliates, INA and Walker Wire. Sales through CIL's affiliates are normally made to unrelated end-users in the U.S. market. CIL's affiliates perform all of the selling functions, such as making freight and delivery arrangements, sales force development, market research, solicitation of orders, technical advice, negotiating prices, invoicing, acting as mill and customer liaison, repairing and cleaning coils, and making arrangements for warranty related to sales. However, because in our LOT analysis for CEP sales we only consider the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of the expenses incurred by the U.S. affiliate, the record indicates that for CIL's CEP sales there are substantially fewer services performed than for the sales in its home market. Therefore, we have determined that CIL's home market sales are made at a different, and more advanced, stage of marketing than the LOT of the CEP sales. Accordingly, we determined that an LOT adjustment may be appropriate when comparing to CEP sales. However, the data available does not permit a determination that there is a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the home market, as there is only one LOT in the home market. Therefore, because CIL's home market sales are made at a different, and more advanced, stage of marketing than the LOT of the CEP sales, we have made a CEP offset to CIL's NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. This offset is equal to the amount of indirect expenses incurred in the home market not exceeding the amount of the deductions made from the U.S. price in accordance with 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Caribbean Ispat Limited 3.45 All Others 12.38 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in such briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, 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. 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 wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis , the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 12.38 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination . 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: November 1, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3071 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-807] Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review. SUMMARY: On May 5, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey (69 FR 25063). This review covers three manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003. We are rescinding the review with respect to 19 companies because they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In addition, we have determined not to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to an additional exporter, ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Elizabeth Eastwood, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-0656 and (202) 482-3874, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers the following three manufacturers/exporters: Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret (collectively “Colakoglu”); Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Diler”); and ICDAS. On May 5, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke in Part , 69 FR 25063 (May 5, 2004) ( Preliminary Results ). Prior to the preliminary results the following companies informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR: Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas), Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas), Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan), Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik), Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik San A.S. (collectively “Ekinciler”), Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas), Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. (Iskenderun), Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir), Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan), Kardemir—Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk), Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman), Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A.S. (Metas), Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet), Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan), Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri A.S. (Sivas), Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali), and Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel). We reviewed data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these companies during the POR, except for Habas. We also confirmed with CBP data that two additional companies included in this review, Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal) and Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum), did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding the review for the companies listed above. Furthermore, we are rescinding our review for Habas because we find that this company did not have any reviewable entries during this POR. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below, and Comment 14 of the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) from Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 1, 2004. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In June 2004, we received case briefs from the petitioners ( i.e. , Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation), Colakoglu, and ICDAS, and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, Colakoglu, ICDAS, Habas, and Diler. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel had no shipments and/or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with CBP data. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to these companies. ( See, e.g. , Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sept. 9, 2003).) Furthermore, with regard to Habas, we preliminarily determined that Habas did not have any reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Information from CBP indicates that there were entries of subject merchandise produced by Habas during the POR. However, the exporter of this merchandise was an unaffiliated company in a third country, and Habas provided documentation to support its claim that it did not have knowledge that this merchandise was destined for the United States. Consequently, we continue to find that Habas did not have any reviewable entries during this POR. See Comment 14 of the Decision Memo. Accordingly, we are rescinding our review for Habas. Cost of Production As discussed in the Preliminary Results , we conducted an investigation to determine whether the respondents participating in the review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production (COPs) within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We performed the cost test for these final results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results , except as discussed in the accompanying Decision Memo. We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Colakoglu, Diler, and ICDAS made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003: Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin percentage Colakoglu 9.25 Diler 0.38 ICDAS 0.00 The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for ICDAS we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding all of Colakoglu and Diler's sales, for assessment purposes, we do not have the information to calculate entered value because these companies were not the importers of record for the subject merchandise. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the export prices. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e. , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above; 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 1, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum Comments 1. Treatment of Section 201 Duties 2. Application of High Inflation/Replacement Cost Methodology 3. Inputs Purchased from Affiliated Parties 4. Treatment of Packing Expenses in the General and Administrative (G&A) and Interest Expense Calculations 5. Date of Sale for Colakoglu 6. Universe of Reviewed Transactions for Colakoglu 7. Home Market Credit Expenses for Colakoglu 8. Commission Offset for Colakoglu 9. Despatch Revenue and Demurrage Expenses for Colakoglu 10. Period of Review for Diler 11. Inland Freight Supplied by Diler's Affiliate 12. Home Market Credit Expenses for Diler 13. G&A Ratio for Diler 14. POR Entries of Merchandise Produced by Habas 15. Revocation for ICDAS 16. Collapsing Issue for ICDAS 17. Whether to Treat ICDAS's U.S. Sales as Export Price (EP) or Constructed Export Price (CEP) Sales 18. Short-term Interest Rates Used for ICDAS 19. Standard Rolling Times for ICDAS 20. Prior Period Reversals for ICDAS 21. Gain on Sale of Ship for ICDAS [FR Doc. E4-3072 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Submission for OBM Review; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
Citation: FR Doc. 04-24784 · A-351-832

Summary

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from Brazil. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Companhia Siderúrgica Belgo Mineira, Belgo Mineira Participação Indústria e Comércio S.A. and BMP Siderúrgica S.A. (collectively, Belgo), have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the export price (EP) and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2004.

Dates

Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 8, 2004. Title and OMB Number: Viability of TRICARE Standard Survey; OMB Number 0720-0031. Type of Request: Extension. Number of Respondents: 25,165. Responses Per Respondent: 1. Annual Responses: 25,165. Average Burden Per Response: 10 minutes. Annual Burden Hours: 4,194. Needs and Uses: As mandated by Congress, confidential surveys of civilian physicians will be completed in TRICARE market areas within the United States to determine how many accept new TRICARE Standard patients in each market area. 20 TRICARE market areas in the United States will be conducted each fiscal year until all TRICARE market areas in the United States have been surveyed. Affected Public: Individuals or households. Frequency: On occasion. Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary. OMB Desk Officer: Mr. John Kraemer. Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Mr. Kraemer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing. Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/ESCD/Information Management Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326. Dated: October 29, 2004. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Office, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 04-24784 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am]

Supplementary Information

Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published an antidumping duty order on steel wire rod from Brazil. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine , 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002). On October 1, 2003, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request the first administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 68 FR 56618 (October 1, 2003). On October 31, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Belgo requested an administrative review and a deferral of initiation for one year. The petitioners 1 submitted an opposition to Belgo's deferral request on November 14, 2003. On November 18, 2003, the Department denied Belgo's deferral request and published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period April 15, 2002, through September 30, 2003 (the POR). See, respectively, Memorandum to Gary Taverman from Constance Handley , “Request for Deferral of Initiation: First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil,” dated November 18, 2003, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building; and, Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 68 FR 66799 (November 28, 2003). 1 The petitioners in this investigation are Co-Steel Raritan, Inc., GS Industries, Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. On December 9, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Belgo, specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B-E would be due on December 30, 2003, and January 15, 2004, respectively. 2 Belgo requested, and the Department granted, various extensions of time to respond to the different sections of the questionnaire. We received timely responses, as extended, to Sections A-D of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated supplemental questionnaires. Additionally, Belgo requested, and the Department denied, an exemption from reporting certain home market sales and costs of production. In the investigation, we initiated a COP inquiry; however, Belgo withdrew from the proceeding before the final determination. For that reason, the Department used adverse facts available (AFA) in calculating the margin for Belgo. Consequently, we find that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Belgo made sales below cost in this review. 2 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. In its January 13, 2004, Section A questionnaire response, Belgo indicated that it and a certain U.S. entity may be related under the Department's affiliation rules. Following the submission of comments by parties, and based on an initial review of the U.S. sales record submitted by Belgo, the Department determined that Belgo and the U.S. entity were affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended effective January 1, 1995 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and requested that Belgo submit data regarding the affiliated U.S. entity's downstream sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Constance Handley , “Antidumping Duty Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Affiliation,” dated July 13, 2004, which is on file in the CRU. On July 26, 2004, Belgo requested an exemption from reporting the affiliated U.S. entity's downstream sales and related further-processing costs pursuant to the “special rule” for value added under section 772(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(c). On July 30, 2004, the petitioners submitted an opposition to the special rule request. Following further comment from the parties, the Department rejected Belgo's special rule request and requested Belgo's U.S. affiliate to respond to Section E. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Jesse Cortes , “Antidumping Duty Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Special Rule to Exempt Reporting of Sales of Further Manufactured Products,” dated September 9, 2004, which is on file in the CRU. On September 20, 2004, Belgo's U.S. affiliate requested an extension of time to respond to the Section E questionnaire through October 8, 2004, which the Department granted on September 21, 2004. However, on October 8, 2004, Belgo's U.S. affiliate informed the Department that it was declining to provide the requested response. Use of Facts Available Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Sweden , 67 FR 47522, 47523 (July 19, 2002). As noted above, Belgo's U.S. affiliate has refused to provide a response to the Department's Section E questionnaire. Belgo was notified by the Department in all of our correspondence, concerning the due dates for submitting data, that failure to submit the requested information by the date specified may result in use of the facts available, as required by section 776(c) of the Act and section 351.308 of the Department's regulations. See letters from the Department to Belgo and Belgo's U.S. affiliate dated September 10 and September 21, 2004, which are on file in the CRU. Consequently, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, for those sales made by Belgo to its U.S. affiliate, we are applying an AFA rate equal to the highest non-aberrational margin calculated for these preliminary results on Belgo's sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy , 64 FR 30750 (June 8, 1999). See, also, Memorandum from Constance Handley to the File , “Analysis Memorandum for Companhia Siderúrgica Belgo Mineira, Belgo Mineira Participação Indústria e Comércio S.A. and BMP Siderúrgica S.A.,” dated November 1, 2004, which is on file in the CRU. We are also using AFA for certain sales in the home market made pursuant to consignment arrangements which had not been reported in the database. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Carol Henninger , “Verification of the Sales Response of Companhia Siderúrgica Belgo Mineira, Belgo Mineira Participção Indústria e Comércio S.A. and BMP Siderúrgica S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,” dated October 1, 2004 ( Sales Verification Report ), at 14, which is on file in the CRU. Additionally, we are using AFA for the cost of coke, a major input supplied to Belgo by an affiliated supplier in Spain; at verification, company officials could not support the Spanish affiliate's COP of coke during the POR. See Memorandum to Neal Harper from J. Laurens van Houten , “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Verification: Antidumping Duty Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,” dated November 1, 2004 ( Cost Verification Report ), which is on file in the CRU. Because the COP reported by the Spanish affiliate is higher than either the market or transfer price reported by Belgo, and higher than any market-economy prices the Department has found, 3 we have determined that, although the cost is unverified, it is appropriate for use as AFA. 3 See Memorandum to Neal Harper from Laurens van Houten , “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Companhia Siderurgica Belgo-Mineira, Belgo-Mineira Participacao, Industria E Comercio S.A. and BMP Siderurgica S.A.,” dated November 1, 2004 ( Cost Calculation Memo ), which is on file in the CRU. Since we are using as AFA in this review calculated margins and cost information submitted by the respondent, no corroboration is necessary. Scope Issues On March 29, 2004, Belgo requested a scope inquiry with regard to the exclusion of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and tire bead quality wire rod (1080 TCBQWR). We have preliminarily found that 1080 TCBQWR with inclusions greater than 20 microns in any direction, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to July 24, 2003, is included in the scope of the order. See Memorandum to Jeffrey May from Jesse Cortes, “Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Preliminary Scope Ruling on Grade 1080 Tire Cord Quality Wire Rod and Tire Bead Quality Wire Rod,” dated October 27, 2004 ( Preliminary Scope Ruling ), which is on file in the CRU. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order Effective July 24, 2003, in accordance with the Department's Notice of Final Result of Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, and Intent to Revoke Orders in Part, 68 FR 64079 (November 12, 2003), the scope of this order was amended. See, also, Preliminary Scope Ruling. Therefore, for purposes of this review, there were separate scopes in effect. These scopes are set forth below. Belgo had no entries of subject merchandise after the effective date of the scope revision. Scope of Order from October 29, 2002, Through July 23, 2003 The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e. , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Scope of Order From July 24, 2003, Through the POR The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e. , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis—that is, the direction of rolling—of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 4 4 Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/toc.html. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in August and September 2004, we verified information provided by Belgo using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, examination of relevant sales, cost and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings from the sales and cost verification on October 1 and November 1, 2004. See Sales Verification Report and Cost Verification Report, which are on file in the CRU. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of steel wire rod from Brazil were made in the United States at less than fair value, we compared EP to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the “Scope of Order” section, above, and sold in Brazil during the POR, are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. For further details, see the “Normal Value” section, below. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. In making the product comparisons, consistent with our preliminary determination in the original investigation, we have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product: grade, carbon content, surface quality, deoxidization, residual content, heat treatment, diameter, and coating. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 18165 (April 15, 2002). These characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Export Price During the POR, Belgo made U.S. sales on an EP basis only. 5 Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the producer or exporter 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 772(c) of the Act. 5 Belgo reported sales to a U.S. affiliate, but we did not calculate margins for those sales. We made deductions to the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate, for movement expenses and rebates to customers, and added duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland freight, warehousing expenses, brokerage and handling fees, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. port expenses, extra discharge expenses, U.S. customs duty, sample fees, demurrage expenses, detention expenses, dead freight expenses, dispatch expenses and bunker surcharges. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. We found that Belgo had a viable home market for steel wire rod. As such, Belgo submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices” section below. B. Arm's-Length Test Belgo reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. 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 Business , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). As explained in the “Level of Trade” section of this notice, we were not able to run the arm's-length test because Belgo's sales to its affiliated customers were found to be at a different level of trade than its sales to its unaffiliated customers. C. Cost of Production Analysis Because we used AFA in calculating Belgo's margin in the investigation, and a COP inquiry had been initiated, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by Belgo were made at prices below the COP during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales made by Belgo. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We relied on Belgo's submitted COP, except for the following adjustments: (a) For the raw material coke, we used the COP of Belgo's Spanish affiliate and, (b) We revised Belgo's G&A and financial expenses ratios. See Cost Calculation Memo . 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COPs for Belgo to its home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( i.e. , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test We disregard below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP and thus were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Belgo made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices We determined NV for Belgo as follows. We made adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also deducted taxes imposed directly on home market sales pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically, we deducted direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expenses net of interest revenue) and added U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses). For matches of similar merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Because Belgo paid commissions on its EP sales, in calculating NV, we deducted the lesser of either (1) the weighted-average amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale for a particular product, or (2) the weighted-average amount of indirect selling expenses paid on the home market sales for a particular product. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). E. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( i.e. , the “chain of distribution”), 6 including selling functions, 7 class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 6 The marketing process in the United States and comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of each respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to occur. 7 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the LOTs in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Other selling functions unique to specific companies were considered, as appropriate. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( i.e. , NV based on either home market or third country prices), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, et al. , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming this methodology). When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference in LOT affects price comparability, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Belgo reported all of its sales were to end users in both the home market and in the United States. Belgo reported a single channel of distribution in the United States. In Brazil, Belgo reported three channels of distribution, direct sales to unaffiliated customers, sales through warehouses to unaffiliated customers and direct sales to affiliated customers. Belgo claims that its home market sales to affiliates are made at a different LOT than its home market sales to unaffiliated customers. We examined the information reported by the respondent regarding its marketing process for making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities performed and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer categories ( i.e. , distributors and end users) within each market and across the markets. Based on our analyses, we found two LOTs in the home market, because Belgo performed all selling activities to a lesser degree for its sales to its affiliates in the home market than for U.S. sales to unaffiliated purchasers. We found a single LOT in the United States, which was comparable to the LOT of Belgo's sales to its unaffiliated customers in the home market. We note that, with no sales to unaffiliated parties at the same LOT, it was impossible for any of Belgo's home market sales to affiliates to pass the arm's-length test. Therefore, all comparisons to home market sales were made at the same LOT and no adjustment was necessary. Currency Conversion The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Brazilian Real. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period April 15, 2002, through September 30, 2003: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Companhia Siderúrgica Belgo Mineira, Belgo Mineira Participação Industria e Comercio S.A. and BMP Sideúrgica S.A. 98.69% Disclosure The Department will disclose calculations performed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a request for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date. Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer or customer of the subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-or customer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( i.e. , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered quantity of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-or customer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer or customer and dividing the amount by the total entered quantity of the sales to that importer or customer. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of steel wire rod from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is de minimis , i.e. , less than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate published in the final determination if the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 74.45 percent, the “all others” rate established in the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil , 67 FR 55792 (August 30, 2002). 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 entities 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 1, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3073 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-830] Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.