Notices. Notice; withdrawal
22,770 words·~104 min read·
/register/2007/05/04/07-2212A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-2006-0111; FV-06-315] United States Standards for Grades of Summer Squash AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is withdrawing the notice soliciting comments on its proposal to amend the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Summer Squash. After reviewing and considering the comments received, the agency has decided not to proceed with this action. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch,
(202)720-2185. The United States Standards for Grades of Summer Squash are available by accessing the Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* Background AMS had identified the United States Standards for Grades of Summer Squash for possible revisions. The standards were last revised on January 6, 1984. On August 6, 2006, AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 44607) soliciting comments on a possible revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Summer Squash. The comments are available by accessing AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* The comment period ended October 7, 2006. During that sixty-day comment period, one comment was submitted opposing the revisions. The commentor stated, “the different varietal characteristics in each type could stop what would work as a “fancy” being packed for one area and put undue strain on the “medium” market because a particular variety of squash does not have the genetics to meet size criteria.” The commentor also stated, “some regions can only successfully grow certain seed varieties and with the characteristics of some varieties, size restrictions could make it prohibitive for some areas to produce summer squash all together.” After reviewing and considering the comments received, AMS has decided not to proceed with the proposed revisions to the standards. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: May 1, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-8574 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed Additions to and Deletions from Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a product to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products and services previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received On Or Before:* June 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for the product will be required to procure the product listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following product is proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed: *Product:* Binder, Loose-leaf. *NSNs:* 7510-00-530-8881—Black, 2″ Capacity for 8 1/2 x 11″ sheets, Turned Edge. 7510-01-203-8814—White, 2″ Capacity, view binder for 8 1/2 x 11″ sheets. 7510-01-278-4130—Black, 2″ Capacity for 8 1/2 x 11″ sheets. 7510-01-283-5274—Black, 1/2 ″ Capacity view binder for 8 1/2 x 11″ sheets. 7510-01-425-6139—Red, 1/2 ″ Capacity, view binder for 8 1/2 x 11″ sheets. 7510-00-281-6180—Black, 1″ Capacity for 8 1/2 x 11″ sheets, Turned Edge. *Coverage:* A-list—for the total Government requirement as specified by the General Services Administration. *NPA:* South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Region 2, New York, NY. *Deletions:* Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. End of Certification The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: *Products:* Innerspring Mattress Rehabilitation (w/handles). *NSNs:* 7699 GRP I Hndl—Less than 36. 7699 GRP II Hndl—36. 7699 GRP III Hnd—Over 41. 7699 GRP IV Hndl—Over 49 Innerspring Mattress Rehabilitation (w/o handles) *NSNs:* 7699 GRP I w/o—Less than 36. 7699 GRP II w/o—36. 7699 GRP III w/o—Over 41. 7699 GRP IV w/o—Over 49. *NPAs:* Georgia Industries for the Blind, Bainbridge, GA. Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS. L.C. Industries for the Blind, Inc., Durham, NC. Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA. Lions Volunteer Blind Industries, Inc., Morristown, TN. Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Winston-Salem, NC. Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Winston-Salem, NC at its facility in Asheville, North Carolina. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Global Supply Center, Fort Worth, TX. *Services:* *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, Iowa Air National Guard (185th Air National Guard Base), Sioux Gateway Airport, Sioux City, IA. *NPA:* Goodwill Community Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Sioux City, IA. *Contracting Activity:* Department of the Air Force. *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, U.S. Army Reserve Center (Middletown), Middletown, CT. *NPA:* Allied Community Services, Inc., Enfield, CT. *Contracting Activity:* Department of the Army, Devens Reserve Forces, MA. *Service Type/Location:* Laundry Service, U.S. Air Force Academy (Cadet Dining Hall), Colorado Springs, CO. *NPA:* Goodwill Industrial Services Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO. *Contracting Activity:* Department of the Air Force. *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, Austin Straubel International Airport (ATCT and Base Building), Green Bay, WI. *NPA:* ASPIRO, Inc., Green Bay, WI. *Contracting Activity:* Federal Aviation Administration, Des Plaines, IL. Patrick Rowe, Deputy Executive Director. [FR Doc. E7-8511 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Correction to Notice of Proposed Addition to the Procurement List In the document appearing on page 19878, FR Doc. E7-7525, Procurement List Proposed Additions, in the issue of Friday, April 20, 2007, in the third column, the Committee published the proposed addition of a product, Cap, Utility, Camouflage Pattern, Air Force, BDU. This notice corrects that proposed addition of the product to read as follows: Cap, Utility, Camouflage Pattern, Air Force, ABU. The other proposed additions announced in the Notice remain the same. Patrick Rowe, Deputy Executive Director. [FR Doc. E7-8510 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-868) Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4243 or
(202)482-4551, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). On March 7, 2007, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review until May 31, 2007. *See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 10141 (March 7, 2007). This review covers the period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. The preliminary results of review are currently due no later than May 31, 2007. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the administrative review of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC within this time limit because of the need for additional information prior to mandatory verifications. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is further extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 30 days until June 30, 2007. Because June 30, 2007, falls on a Saturday, the preliminary results will due on July 2, 2007, the next business day. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: April 30, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8587 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-357-812 Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke In Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. *See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent Not to Revoke in Part* , 71 FR 78397 (December 29, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This administrative review covers three 1 firms, one of which, Seylinco, S.A. (Seylinco) was selected as a mandatory respondent. The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2004 to November 30, 2005. Based on our analysis of comments received, the margins for the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. *See Preliminary Results* . 1 Mielar S.A. (Mielar) and Compania Apicola Argentina S.A.
(CAA)were treated as a single entity in a prior segment of the proceeding. For the purposes of this review we continue to treat Mielar and CAA as a single entity (M ielar/CAA). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Burke or Robert James, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone;
(202)482-5604 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 29, 2006, the Department published its *Preliminary Results* of this antidumping duty administrative review of honey from Argentina for the period December 1, 2004, to November 30, 2005. In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the preliminary results, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) and Seylinco filed their case briefs on January 29, 2007. Seylinco and petitioners submitted their rebuttal briefs on February 5, 2007. In addition, the Department met separately with representatives for Seylinco, petitioners and the Embassy of Argentina to discuss the *Preliminary Results* . *See Ex Parte* Memoranda to the File, from Maryanne Burke dated March 6, 2007 and March 19, 2007, on file in CRU in room B-099 of the main Commerce building. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Determination Not to Revoke in Part As discussed in the *Preliminary Results* at 78399, Seylinco requested that the Department revoke the order in regard to Seylinco pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222 based on three consecutive zero margins. We preliminarily determined not to revoke the order with respect to Seylinco because it did not ship in commercial quantities during each of the three years forming the basis of its request. *See id* . For these final results, the Department has relied upon Seylinco's sales activity during the 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 PORs in making its decision with respect to Seylinco's revocation request. Although Seylinco had three consecutive years of sales at not less than normal value (NV), Seylinco did not sell subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of these three years forming the basis of the request for revocation. Thus, Seylinco is not eligible for consideration for revocation pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1). Accordingly, we have determined not to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Seylinco. *See* Comment 2 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Issues and Decision Memorandum) accompanying this notice. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the CRU and can be accessed directly on the web at *http://www.ita.doc.gov/.* Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received and findings at verification, we have made the following change in the margin calculation: • We revised the color characteristic (GRADET/U) in both the U.S. and third-country market sales listings to differentiate amongst the various colors of honey actually shipped, in accordance with our established model-matching criteria. Final Results of Review We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2004 through November 30, 2005. Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) Seylinco 0.00 El Mana, S.A. 0.00 Mielar/CAA 0.00 Assessment The Department shall determine, and the Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated a zero margin rate which will be applied uniformly on all Seylinco, El Mana S.A. and Mielar/CAA entries made during the POR. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. We will direct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act):
(1)cash deposits for Seylinco, El Mana S.A. and Mielar/CAA will not be required;
(2)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less than fair value
(LTFV)investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 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)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 continue to be 30.24 percent, which is the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina* , 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties 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 a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: April 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix - Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available as a Result of Seylinco's Reported Grade/Color 2. Revocation 3. Adverse Facts Available for Beekeeper 2 4. Beekeeper Feed Costs 5. Beekeeper Drums Costs [FR Doc. E7-8584 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-851 Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 28, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period of review from February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007 (“POR”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 14516 (March 28, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). On April 17, 2007, the review request was withdrawn with respect to all parties who requested the review. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the administrative review of sales of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC covering the POR. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4081. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC for the POR. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 5007 (February 2, 2007). On February 28, 2007, China Processed Food Import and Export Company, COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co. Ltd., China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, Fujian Yu Xing Fruit and Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co., and Xiamen Jiahua Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. requested administrative reviews of their sales of certain preserved mushrooms to the United States during the POR. Pursuant to this request, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ceratin preserved mushrooms from the PRC. *See Initiation Notice* . On April 17, 2007, all five companies which requested the review timely withdrew their requests for administrative reviews. Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. In this case, the companies listed above withdrew their requests for administrative reviews of their exports of certain preserved mushrooms for the POR, within 90 days from the date of initiation. No other interested party requested a review of these companies. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC covering the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries for China Processed Food Import and Export Company, COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co. Ltd., China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, Fujian Yu Xing Fruit and Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co., and Xiamen Jiahua Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Notification to Importers This notice 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 assumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (“APOs”) This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APOs of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) of the Department's regulations. Dated: April 26, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8585 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-878 Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise were made at less than normal value (“NV”) by Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Fortune”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Fortune during the period of review (“POR”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Fornaro or Frances Veith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3927 or
(202)482-4295, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 9, 2003, the Department published the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 40906 (July 9, 2003). On July 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351. 213(b)(1), the following requests were made:
(1)on July 28, 2006, Shanghai Fortune and Suzhou Fine Chemical Co. Group Ltd. (“Suzhou Fine Chemical”), Chinese exporting producers of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of their exports;
(2)on July 28, 2006, Amgal Chemical Products
(1989)Ltd. (“Amgal”), an Israeli exporting producer of sodium saccharin made from subject merchandise manufactured in the PRC, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its exports. On August 30, 2006, the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to Shanghai Fortune, Suzhou Fine Chemical, and Amgal. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). The Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Shanghai Fortune, Suzhou Fine Chemical, and Amgal on August 30, 2006. On September 7, 2006, the Office of Policy issued a list of five surrogate countries at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC for the POR. *See* the Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 8, regarding, “Administrative Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries” (September 7, 2006) (“ *Policy Memorandum* ”). On October 16 and November 14, 2006, Suzhou Fine Chemical and Amgal, respectively, withdrew their requests for an administrative review. No other party requested an administrative review of Suzhou Fine Chemical's or Amgal's exports to the United States. On October 20, 2006, Shanghai Fortune submitted its sections A, C, and D questionnaire response (“ *ACD-QR* ”). On September 8 and 12, 2006, the Department invited interested parties to submit surrogate value (“SV”) information and to submit comments on surrogate country selection. *See* the Letter from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, Office 8, to All Interested Parties (September 8, 2006); and Letter from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, Office 8, to All Interested Parties (September 12, 2006). On November 13, 2006, Shanghai Fortune submitted publicly available information to value the factors of production (“FOP”). No interested party submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate country. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Fortune on December 20, 2006, and on February 20, March 1, and March 14, 2007. Shanghai Fortune submitted responses to these supplemental questionnaires on January 17, March 6, March 20, and March 26, 2007, respectively. The Department also issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Fortune's U.S. customer on December 21, 2006. The U.S. customer submitted a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire on January 18, 2007. On December 26, 2006, the Department published a notice of partial rescission of this administrative review with respect to Suzhou Fine Chemical and Amgal. *See Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 77382 (December 26, 2006). On March 23, 2007, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for issuing its preliminary results of review until May 2, 2007. *See Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 13746 (March 23, 2007). Period of Review The POR is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is saccharin. Saccharin is defined as a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and foods, personal care products such as toothpaste, table top sweeteners, and animal feeds. It is also used in metalworking fluids. There are four primary chemical compositions of saccharin:
(1)Sodium saccharin (American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (“CAS”) Registry 128-44-44);
(2)calcium saccharin (CAS Registry 6485-34-34);
(3)acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81-07-07); and
(4)research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and imported grades of saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium saccharin, which are available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, and liquid forms. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 2925.11.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) and includes all types of saccharin imported under this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive. Non-Market Economy Country Status Shanghai Fortune did not contest the Department's treatment of the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country, and the Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews and continues to do so in this case. *See* , *e.g.* , *Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006) (“ *FMTC-Final-04-05* ”); and *Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006) (“ *Non-Malleable Pipe* ”). No interested party in this case has argued that we should do otherwise. Designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* Section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:
(1)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum from Frances Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, “Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum” (April 27, 2007) (“ *Surrogate Value Memorandum* ”). The Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See Policy Memorandum* . Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the *Policy Memorandum* based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. *See* Memorandum from Frances Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, and Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to the File, “2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country” (February 26, 2007) (“ *Surrogate Country Memorandum* ”). Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. *See Surrogate Country Memorandum* and *Surrogate Value Memorandum* . Where Indian data was not available, the Department calculated the SV using World Trade Atlas (“WTA”) import statistics from the Philippines, available at *http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm* . The Philippines import data represents cumulative values for fiscal year 2005. We obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control, and thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate. *See* , *e.g.* , *Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 74764, 74765 (December 16, 2005) (unchanged in the final results); 1 and *Non-Malleable Pipe* , 71 FR at 69548. 1 *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006). We considered whether Shanghai Fortune, based in the PRC, is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the exporters are independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See* , *e.g.* , *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997). To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate-rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of select criteria. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20585, 22587 (May 6, 1991); and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law (“ *de jure* ”) and in fact (“ *de facto* ”). Shanghai Fortune provided company-specific separate-rate information and stated that it met the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. 2 Shanghai Fortune reported that it is wholly owned by Fortune Knitting Co., Ltd., a privately held foreign-owned market economy entity. 3 Therefore, further separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether Shanghai Fortune's export activities are independent from government control. *See* , *e.g.* , *Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 38852, at 38853-38855 (July 10, 2006) (“ *FMTC-Prelim-04-05* ”) (unchanged in the final) 4 and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China* , 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). 2 *See ACD-QR* at pages A2 through A8. 3 *Id* . 4 *See FMTC-Final-04-05* . Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that: in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (upholding the Department's rebuttable presumption that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale). After examining the questionnaire responses and the sale documentation placed on the record by Shanghai Fortune, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale in this review. We made this determination based on statements on the record that indicate that Shanghai Fortune's invoice establishes the material terms of sale to the extent required by our regulations. *See* Shanghai Fortune's *ACD-QR* at A11 and C12. Nothing on the record of this review rebuts the presumption that invoice date should be the date of sale. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether Shanghai Fortune's sale of saccharin to the United States was made at a price below NV, we compared Shanghai Fortune's export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, pursuant to section 773 of the Act. Export Price Because Shanghai Fortune sold subject merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation into the United States and use of a constructed-export-price methodology was not otherwise indicated, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. For Shanghai Fortune, we calculated EP based on the FOB Shanghai port price to an unaffiliated purchaser. From this price, we deducted amounts for foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. *See* Memorandum to the File from Ann Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst: “Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd.” (April 27, 2007) (“ *Shanghai Fortune Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* ”). The Department used two sources to calculate an SV for domestic brokerage and handling expenses. The Department averaged December 2003 through November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2018, 2022 (January 12, 2006). The Essar Steel data was averaged with the February 2004 through January 2005 data contained in Agro Dutch Industries Limited's (“Agro Dutch”) May 24, 2005, public version response submitted in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005); and *FMTC-Prelim-04-05* at 71 FR 38857 (utilizing this same data). The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions is ranged data. Essar Steel reported averaged, ranged values for each reported sale transaction in its submission, while Agro Dutch reported an overall averaged, ranged value for its POR. In the instant review, the Department first derived an overall average value from Essar Steel's data. Then the Department adjusted both source's overall average value for inflation. Finally, the Department derived an SV for brokerage and handling by calculating an average from the source's inflated average value. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 12. To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange, available at *http://www.infreight.com* . The truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR; therefore, we made no adjustments for inflation. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 11. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department will base NV on FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include:
(1)hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs. We used the FOPs reported by Shanghai Fortune for materials, energy, labor, and packing. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy supplier and pays for it in market economy currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); *see also* , *Lasko Metal Products v. United States* , 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs). However, when the Department has reason to believe or suspect that such prices may be distorted by subsidies, the Department will disregard the market economy purchase prices and use SVs to determine the NV. *See* , *e.g.* , *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part* , 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1. Shanghai Fortune reported that a significant percentage of its consumption of phthalic anhydride used in the production of saccharin was purchased from a market economy and paid for in a market economy currency. *See* the “Factor Valuations” section of this notice, below, for further discussion. Shanghai Fortune reported that during the production process of saccharin, it generates and recycles certain chemical by-products for resale. 5 However, Shanghai Fortune was unable to provide documentation supporting its production and sales of these by-products during the POR. The amount of products reused or sold during the POR is an integral part of the factor calculation for by-products. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from Belarus* , 68 FR 9055 (February 27, 2003), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 3 (“The Department allows such credits, but only for the amount of the by-product/recovery actually sold or reused.”); *Notice of the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 6; and *Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative* , 71 FR 7515 (February 13, 2006), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 2. Therefore, we are not granting a by-product offset to Shanghai Fortune. For further details, *see Shanghai Fortune Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* . 5 *See ACD-QR* in Exhibits D-3. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Shanghai Fortune for the POR. We relied on the factor-specific data submitted by Shanghai Fortune in its questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses for purposes of selecting SVs. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted below). In selecting the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). *See Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where necessary, we adjusted the SVs for inflation/deflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published on the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) website, available at *http://www.rbi.org.in* . For a detailed description of all SVs used for Shanghai Fortune, *see* the *Surrogate Value Memorandum* . Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, weighted-average unit import values derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India and used in the WTA, available at *http:www.gtis.com/wta.htm* . The Indian WTA import data is reported in rupees and is contemporaneous with the POR. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 4. We adjusted the SVs to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent. We used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange, available at *http://www.infreight.com* , to value truck freight. Because the truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR, we made no adjustments for inflation. Furthermore, with regard to the WTA import-based SVs, for each input value, we used the average unit value for that input imported into India from all countries, with three exceptions. First, imports from all countries that the Department has previously determined to be NME countries were excluded from the average. 6 Second, it is the Department's current practice that, where the facts developed in U.S. or third-country countervailing duty findings include the existence of subsidies that appear to be used generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies), it is reasonable for the Department to consider that it has particular and objective evidence to support a reason to believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from the country granting the subsidies may be subsidized. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part* , 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1; *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part* , 66 FR 57420 (Nov. 15, 2001), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1; and *China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We are also guided by the statute's legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See* H.R. Rep. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess. 590-91 (1988). Rather, the Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it is making its determination. Therefore, we excluded export prices from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India in calculating the Indian import-based SVs or in calculating the Philippines import-based SV. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum. 6 For further information, *see Expected Non-Market Economy Wages: Request for Comment on Calculation Methodology* , 70 FR 37761, 37763 (June 30, 2005) (“ *Wage Rate FR* ”). Finally, we excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country from the average value because we could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with general export subsidies. For a complete description of the factor values we used in these preliminary results, *see Surrogate Value Memorandum* . To value aqueous ammonia, the Department used the POR average unit value for imports into India from all countries, except as noted above. We invite parties to submit comments and additional information on the valuation of aqueous ammonia to be considered by the Department for the final results, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). For further discussion of the comments submitted to the Department by Shanghai Fortune regarding the valuation of aqueous ammonia, *see Surrogate Value Memorandum* . In addition to the Indian WTA import data, we valued certain raw material inputs ( *i.e.* , liquid sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, sodium nitrite, copper sulfate, toluene, sodium bicarbonate, ionic membrane sodium hydroxide) based on Indian domestic price data obtained from the Indian publication *Chemical Weekly* . Because the domestic chemical prices obtained from *Chemical Weekly* are reported on a 100-percent concentration basis unless otherwise noted, we adjusted the weighted-average POR price for Shanghai Fortune's reported product chemical concentration percentage levels, where appropriate. *See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review* , 64 FR 69503, 69504-69505 (December 13, 1999) at Comment 2. We calculated an average domestic price from the multiple publication prices within the POR, where applicable. We adjusted the average value to exclude excise and/or sales tax in each case where the price was specifically identified as being inclusive of the 16-percent excise tax identified in *Central Excise Tariff 1998-99* (as published by Cen-Cus Publications, New Delhi) and/or sales tax, as appropriate. For further details, *see Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 5. As noted in the “Normal Value” section above, Shanghai Fortune provided evidence that it had purchased phthalic anhydride from a market economy supplier and paid for it in a market economy currency. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department has determined to use the market economy price as reported by Shanghai Fortune to value this input because the market economy input represents a significant quantity of the input purchased during the POR. For further details, *see Shanghai Fortune Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* . To value sulfur dioxide, the Department used the per-kilogram values obtained from Annual Import Statistics of the Philippines National Statistics Office, as published by the WTA, because we found the POR Indian data available for this input to be unreliable due to small quantities and aberrant values. We made adjustments to the weighted-average value to account for freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and Shanghai Fortune. The Philippines WTA data is reported in U.S. dollars (“USD”) and is contemporaneous with the POR. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 4. To value liquid chlorine, the Department selected the sales value of chlorine from public information the Department placed on the record of this review 7 ( *i.e.* , annual reports of three Indian Chemical companies: 1) Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.; 2) Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Limited; and 3) TATA Chemicals) because we found the WTA Indian data available for this input to be unreliable due to small quantities and aberrant values and Chemical Weekly price data is not available for this input. We averaged the sales prices for chlorine reported in the three annual reports and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and Shanghai Fortune. The sales value data is reported in rupees per metric ton and is contemporaneous with the POR. *See also* , *Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 6. 7 *See* Memorandum to the File, from Frances Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding, “Surrogate Value Data for Liquid Chlorine,” (March 8, 2007). To value electricity, the Department used the 2000 electricity price rates from *Key World Energy Statistics 2003* , published by the International Energy Agency available at *http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html* . Because this data was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the average value for inflation using WPI. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 8. To value water, we used the Revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (“MIDC”) water rates for June 1, 2003, available at *http://www.midcindia.com/water-supply* , adjusted for inflation using WPI. For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national income in market economy countries as reported on Import Administration's home page. *See* “Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries” (revised January 2007) (available at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* ). For further details on the labor calculation, *see Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 7. For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit values, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used public information gathered from an auditor's report for the year ending March 31, 2006, from an Indian producer of comparable merchandise ( *i.e.* , Atul Ltd.). From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (“ML&E”) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( *i.e.* , cost of manufacture) and traded goods; and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A and traded goods. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* for a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios. For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from the Indian WTA import data and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and Shanghai Fortune. *See Surrogate Value Memorandum* at Attachment 4. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily find the weighted-average dumping margin for Shanghai Fortune for the period July 1 2005, through June 30, 2006, to be 47.60 percent. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations used in our preliminary analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department requests that parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette or CD. 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 these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an exporter/importer-or customer-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review. For these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered quantity of those reviewed sales for each applicable importer. In this review, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value or per-unit assessment, as appropriate, for the subject merchandise on each importers'/customers' entries during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for Shanghai Fortune, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 329.33 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8581 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-351-826) Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Dena Crossland, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0193 or
(202)482-3362, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 29, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe from Brazil, covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). The preliminary results for this review are currently due no later than May 3, 2007. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results The deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review is currently May 3, 2007. The Department determines that completion of the preliminary results within the statutory time period is not practicable. The Department issued a supplemental sales and cost questionnaire to respondent V&M do Brasil, S.A. (“VMB”) to gather information with respect to how VMB reported certain production costs and calculated its interest expense ratio on April 18, 2007, and the supplemental questionnaire response is currently due on May 2, 2007. The Department requires additional time to review and analyze VMB's supplemental questionnaire response, and to issue additional supplemental cost questionnaires, if necessary. Therefore, given the additional time needed to conduct complete analyses for this administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of these preliminary results by an additional 60 days to no later than July 2, 2007. The final results continue to be due no later than 120 days after the publication of the notice of the preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 30, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8586 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-489-807) Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review and a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that certain of the producers/exporters have made sales below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We also have preliminarily determined to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Colakoglu”) and Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, “Diler”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0656 or
(202)482-0498, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 3, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity To Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 16549 (Apr. 3, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on April 28, 2006, the Department received requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey from the following producers/exporters of rebar: Colakoglu; Diler; Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Ekinciler”); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. and Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. (collectively “Kaptan”). As part of their requests, Colakoglu and Diler also requested that the Department revoke the antidumping order with regard to them, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b). Also, on April 28, 2006, the domestic interested parties, Nucor Corporation, Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation and Commercial Metals Company, requested an administrative review for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b), on April 28, 2006, the Department received a request to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey from Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S. and Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. (collectively “Kroman”). In May 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kaptan and a new shipper review for Kroman, and we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to these companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006), and *Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey* , 71 FR 30383 (May 26, 2006). On May 22, 2006, Kroman agreed in writing to waive the time limits in order for the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), to conduct the new shipper review concurrently with the administrative review. In July 2006, we received responses to sections A through D of the questionnaire from Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas, and to sections A through C of the questionnaire from Kaptan and Kroman. Also in July 2006, the domestic interested parties requested that the Department initiate sales-below-cost investigations of Kaptan and Kroman. We initiated sales-below-cost investigations for these companies in August 2006. *See* the Memoranda to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team, entitled, “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret A.S. and Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret Ve Nakliyat A.S.” (“Kaptan Cost Allegation Memo”) and “Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S. and Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S.” (“Kroman Cost Allegation Memo”), dated August 11, 2006. In August 2006, we issued supplemental sales questionnaires to each of the six respondent companies. We received responses to these questionnaires in August and September 2006. In September 2006, we conducted an on-site verification of Kroman's sales response in Turkey. Also during this month, we received Kaptan's and Kroman's responses to section D of the questionnaire, and we issued supplemental cost questionnaires to Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas. We received responses to the supplemental cost questionnaires from Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas in September and October 2006. In October 2006, we issued supplemental cost questionnaires to Kaptan and Kroman. Also during this month, the Department postponed the preliminary results of this review until no later than April 30, 2007. *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 62418 (Oct. 25, 2006). We received a supplemental cost questionnaire response from Kaptan and Kroman in November 2006. From November 2006 through January 2007, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires to each of the respondents. We received responses to these questionnaires from November 2006 through February 2007. In February 2007, the domestic interested parties alleged that each of the rebar producers involved in both the administrative and new shipper reviews was engaged in anti-competitive practices in the home and U.S. markets during the period of review (POR), as evidenced by a 2005 finding by the Turkish Government Competition Board (Competition Board). As a result, the domestic industry requested that the Department *inter alia* : 1) reject the responses by the producers in the administrative review and base the preliminary dumping margins on adverse facts available (AFA), and 2) determine that Kroman is affiliated with all Turkish rebar producers named in the Competition Board report and rescind the initiation of the new shipper review for this company. In February and March 2007, we received comments from the respondents on these allegations, as well as reply comments from the domestic industry. For further discussion, see the “Turkish Government Competition Board Finding” section below. In March 2007, we issued additional supplemental cost questionnaires to Colakoglu and Ekinciler, as well as questionnaires to all interested parties regarding the allegations noted above. We received responses to these questionnaires in April 2007. Also in April 2007, the domestic interested parties submitted a second report by the Competition Board, which they allege: 1) demonstrates that several of the respondents were engaged in close supplier relationships; and, 2) should be relied upon by the Department to make a finding that the respondents in this proceeding are affiliated. 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 under subheadings 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. Notice of Intent To Revoke, in Part As noted above, on April 28, 2006, Colakoglu and Diler requested revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to their sales of subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). These requests were accompanied by certifications that Colakolgu and Diler have sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current POR and will not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future. Colakoglu and Diler further certified that they sold subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. Colakoglu and Diler also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, they sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, the Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751(a) of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. Sections 351.222(b)(1)(A) and 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations explain that the Secretary may revoke an antidumping duty order in part if the Secretary concludes, *inter alia* , that one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years. *See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands* , 65 FR 742, 743 (Jan. 6, 2000). We preliminarily determine that the requests from Colakoglu and Diler meet all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). With regard to the criteria of subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations show that Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar at not less than NV during the current review period. *See* the “Preliminary Results of the Review” section below. In addition, Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews in which they were involved ( *i.e.* , their dumping margins were zero or *de minimis* ). *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , 71 FR 65082 (Nov. 7, 2006), unchanged in *Notice of Amended Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey* , 71 FR 75711 (Dec. 18, 2006); *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 2005). Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Colakoglu and Diler, we preliminarily determine that they sold the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by Colakoglu and Diler to support their requests for revocation. *See* the Memoranda to the file from Brianne Riker entitled “Analysis of Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S.'s Commercial Quantities for Request for Revocation” and “Analysis of Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.'s Commercial Quantities for Request for Revocation,” dated April 30, 2007. Thus, we preliminarily find that Colakoglu and Diler had zero or *de minimis* dumping margins for their last three administrative reviews and sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of these years. Also, we preliminarily determine that the application of the antidumping duty order with respect to Colakoglu and Diler is no longer warranted for the following reasons: 1) the companies had zero or *de minimis* margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; 2) the companies have agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that they have resumed making sales at less than NV; and, 3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Colakoglu and Diler qualify for revocation of the order on rebar pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), and that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Colakolgu and Diler should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke this order in part for Colakoglu and Diler and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), terminate the suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2006, and instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such entries. We note that the domestic interested parties have alleged that the Competition Board finding should render Colakoglu and Diler ineligible for revocation. The Department is currently considering this argument and will make a decision on it no later than the final results. For further discussion, see the “Turkish Government Competition Board Finding” section below. Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Kroman For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Kroman's reported U.S. sale during the POR is a *bona fide* sale, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that the price reported for Kroman's rebar sale was similar to the average unit value of U.S. imports of comparable rebar from Turkey during the POR. We also find that the quantity of the sale was within the range of shipment sizes of comparable goods exported from Turkey during the POR. *See* the Memorandum from Brianne Riker to the File, entitled “Placing Information from the 2005-2006 Administrative Review on Rebar from Turkey on the Record of the New Shipper Review on Rebar from Turkey for Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.,” dated April 30, 2007. Finally, we considered whether the importer involved in this transaction is an actual commercial entity, and we found no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the importing party involved in this new shipper review. *See* the Memorandum to James Maeder from Irina Itkin entitled, “Analysis of Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.'s *Bona Fides* As A New Shipper in the New Shipper Review of Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,” dated April 30, 2007, for further discussion of our price and quantity analysis. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department preliminarily finds that Kroman's sole U.S. sale during the POR was a *bona fide* commercial transaction. We note that the domestic interested parties have alleged that: 1) Kroman's U.S. sale is not a *bona fide* transaction because the price for this sale was not competitively set; and/or, 2) Kroman is not entitled to a new shipper review because it is affiliated with other respondents in this case. The Department is currently considering these arguments and, when we make a determination with regard to the Competition Board's reports, we will incorporate our analysis on this point into that determination. For further discussion, see the “Turkish Government Competition Board Finding” section below. Turkish Government Competition Board Finding On February 21 and 23, 2007, the domestic interested parties submitted a report by the Turkish Government Competition Board regarding the Turkish steel industry in the administrative review and new shipper review, respectively. The domestic interested parties argue that this report demonstrates that the respondents engaged in anti-competitive behavior prior to and during the POR by colluding with each other to manipulate home market and export prices and to suppress costs. The domestic interested parties assert that the Department should:
(1)find that a particular market situation, a fictitious market, or sales outside the course of ordinary trade exist and not use home market sales as a basis for NV;
(2)not revoke Colakoglu and Diler from the order due to collusive behavior;
(3)find that all U.S. sales are not *bona fide* ; and
(4)collapse all Turkish rebar producers into a single entity and find that Kroman does not qualify as a new shipper because of affiliation with other respondents. The domestic parties further contend that the Department should, as a result, rescind the initiation of the new shipper review for Kroman and assign preliminary dumping margins to each of the remaining producers using AFA. In addition, on April 9, 2007, the domestic interested parties submitted a second report by the Competition Board, which they allege: 1) demonstrates that several of the respondents were engaged in close supplier relationships; and 2) should be relied upon by the Department to make a finding that the respondents in this proceeding are affiliated. The respondents in this case have objected to the Department's acceptance of these submissions because, they argue:
(1)it is inappropriate to consider antitrust findings in the context of a dumping proceeding;
(2)the Competition Board's ruling is not final, as it is under appeal in the Turkish judicial system;
(3)the Competition Board's decision and evidence should not be considered in the current POR because it relates to a prior period of time; and/or
(4)the small fines that the Competition Board levied indicate that it did not believe that the anti-competitive behavior was significant. The respondents did not submit arguments regarding the domestic interested parties' April 9, 2007, submission. As a threshold matter, we have concluded that it is appropriate to accept the Competition Board's reports on the administrative record of these proceedings. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.104(a), the Competition Board's reports are new factual information which are, at minimum, of concern to these proceedings in that they address alleged collusive and anti-competitive behavior among members of the Turkish steel industry, of which rebar producers are a significant part, that may have influenced the costs and market prices of the respondents in these reviews. Accordingly, the Department acted consistently with its authority in accepting this information and considering it for purposes of the ongoing administrative and new shipper reviews. See 19 CFR 351.104(a) and 351.301(c)(2) (authorizing the Department to consider information provided during the proceeding and allowing it to extend the time within which information may be provided during a review if it considers such an extension of time is warranted). The Department has been unable to fully address this issue in these preliminary results because the Competition Board's reports were placed on the record late in the proceedings, and there has been a large amount of argument submitted by both sides on the matter. Furthermore, the domestic interested parties submitted new arguments on this point not long before issuance of these preliminary results. Accordingly, the Department has not yet had the opportunity to fully review and address all issues with regard to this matter. Subsequent to publication of the preliminary results, the Department will provide to the interested parties its preliminary conclusions on these issues and give them an opportunity to comment on those conclusions before reaching final conclusions and publishing the final results of these administrative and new shipper reviews. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price
(EP)to the NV, as described in the “Normal Value” section of this notice. When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. and home markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: form, grade, size, and industry standard specification. Where there were no home market sales of foreign like product that were identical in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority. Export Price We used EP methodology for all U.S. sales, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. Regarding U.S. date of sale, four of the respondents ( *i.e.* , Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kaptan) argued that we should use contract date as the date of sale for their U.S. sales in this review, while Diler and Kroman argued that we should base their dates of sale on invoice date. After analyzing the record, we determine that the appropriate U.S. date of sale for Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas is the earlier of invoice or shipment date because:
(1)we previously found that the terms of sale ( *i.e.* , price and quantity) were changeable after the contract date for these respondents ( *see Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 26455, 26458 (May 5, 2006) ( *04-05 Preliminary Results* ), unchanged in the final results); and,
(2)we find that there were no changes in the sales process, customers, types of contracts, etc., between the previous administrative review and the current POR for these respondents. Further, regarding Ekinciler, we determined that the appropriate U.S. date of sale is contract date because, as in the previous administrative review, we find that the material terms of sale were set at the contract date, given that the terms did not change prior to invoicing. *See id.* Finally, regarding Kaptan and Kroman, because these companies were not respondents in the previous administrative review, we examined the contracts and invoices related to their U.S. sales. For Katpan, we found that the terms of sale were not set at the contract date and, therefore, we used the earlier of invoice or shipment date as the U.S. date of sale. For Kroman, we determined that there were no changes to the material terms of sale between the contract and invoice date and, therefore, we used contract date as the U.S. date of sale. A. Colakoglu We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for loading expenses, inspection fees, demurrage expenses (offset by freight commission revenue, dispatch revenue, and other freight-related revenue), ocean freight expenses, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. B. Diler We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and loading expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. C. Ekinciler We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, customs overtime fees, crane charges, terminal charges, inspection fees, demurrage expenses (offset by despatch revenue), ocean freight expenses (offset by freight revenue), U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. D. Habas We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, customs overtime fees, loading charges (offset by despatch revenue), forklift charges, surveying expenses, and ocean freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added to the starting price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. E. Kaptan We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling charges, loading expenses, inspection fees, freight commission expenses, demurrage commission expenses, weighing charges, and ocean freight expenses (offset by freight-related revenues), where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added to the starting price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. F. Kroman We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, inspection fees, ocean freight expenses, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added to the starting price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales. For each respondent, in accordance with our practice, we excluded home market sales of non-prime merchandise made during the POR from our preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in the home market and the fact that no such sales were made to the United States during the POR. *See* , *e.g.* , *04-05 Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 26459, unchanged in the final results; *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke in Part* , 70 FR 23990, 23993 (May 6, 2005), unchanged in the final results; *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 25066, 25066 (May 5, 2004), unchanged in the final results; *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke in Part* , 68 FR 23972 (May 6, 2003), unchanged in the final results. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kroman made sales of rebar to affiliated parties in the home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales to ensure that they were made at arm's-length prices, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the Department's practice, 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 (LOT), we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing that the overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 and 102 percent in order for sales to be considered in the ordinary course of trade and used in the NV calculation). Sales to affiliated customers in the home market that were not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered these sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* 19 CFR 351.102(b). C. Cost of Production Analysis Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that these respondents made home market sales at prices below their costs of production
(COPs)in this review because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the cost test for these companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which these companies participated ( *i.e.* , the 2003-2004 administrative review for Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas and the 2000-2001 administrative review for Ekinciler). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether these companies made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, for Kaptan and Kroman, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that these respondents made home market sales at prices below their COP in this review because of information contained in the cost allegations properly filed by the domestic interested parties. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Kaptan and Kroman made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. *See* the “Kaptan Cost Allegation Memo” and the “Kroman Cost Allegation Memo.” 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses. *See* the “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. We relied on the COP information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued: A. Colakoglu Because Colakoglu's financial revenue exceeded its expense, we did not include an amount for financial expense in the calculation of COP or constructed value (CV). This is in accordance with the Department's practice of determining that, when a company earns enough financial income that it recovers all of its financial expense, that company did not have a resulting cost for financing during that period. *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 26455, 26460 (May 5, 2006) ( *04-05 Preliminary Results* ), unchanged in the final results; *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 70 FR 73437 (Dec. 12, 2005) ( *Lumber from Canada* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 9 and 25. For further discussion of this adjustment, see the Memorandum from LaVonne Clark to Neal Halper entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S.,” dated April 30, 2007. B. Diler 1. We applied the transactions disregarded rule under section 773(f)(2) of the Act to the billets purchased through an affiliated reseller. As a result, we adjusted Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S.'s (Yazici Demir's) fixed and variable costs of steelmaking. 2. We adjusted the reported G&A expenses for Yazici Demir to exclude an offset for an income item related to an affiliated party because the income was associated with Yazici Demir's investment activities. 3. We adjusted the reported G&A expenses for Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Diler Demir) to include the cost of POR donations. 4. We adjusted the respective cost of sales figure used as the denominator for G&A and financial expense rate calculations by excluding the costs of byproduct merchandise sold during the 2005 fiscal year for Yazici Demir and Diler Demir. 5. Because Diler's financial revenue exceeded its expense, we did not include an amount for financial expense in the calculation of COP or CV. *See 04-05 Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 26460; Lumber from Canada at Comments 9 and 25. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Angela Strom to Neal Halper entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Tursizm Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.,” dated April 30, 2007. C. Ekinciler 1. We adjusted Ekinciler's G&A expense ratio to include the actual expenses charged by its parent company ( *i.e.* , Ekinciler Holding) for direct services and allocated Ekinciler Holding's residual G&A expenses ( *i.e.* , those G&A expenses not charged to a subsidiary) to each subsidiary, including Ekinciler, based on the proportion of each subsidiary's cost of sales (COS). 2. We recalculated Ekinciler's fiscal year-end 2005 depreciation expenses for assets with remaining useful lives to be based on the stated depreciation rates reported in Ekinciler's general assets ledger. 3. We have excluded the COS for scrap and defective billets from the COS denominator in calculating the G&A and financial expense ratios. 4. We adjusted Ekinciler's fixed overhead expense to include the amortization of certain proprietary assets. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Laurens van Houten to Neal Halper entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S.,” dated April 30, 2007. D. Habas 1. We adjusted the reported cost of raw materials to include import duties that were not collected by the Turkish government due to the subsequent re-exportation of the material and the claimed duty drawback adjustment. 2. Because Habas' financial revenue exceeded its expense, we did not include an amount for financial expense in the calculation of COP or CV. *See 04-05 Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 26460; *Lumber from Canada* at Comments 9 and 25. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Gina Lee to Neal Halper entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.,” dated April 30, 2007. E. Kaptan We adjusted the reported cost of raw materials to include import duties that were not collected by the Turkish government due to the subsequent re-exportation of the material and the claimed duty drawback adjustment. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Trinette Boyd to Neal Halper entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. and Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S.,” dated April 30, 2007. F. Kroman 1. We adjusted the reported cost of raw materials to include import duties that were not collected by the Turkish government due to the subsequent re-exportation of the material and the claimed duty drawback adjustment. 2. We adjusted the net financial expense rate to:
(1)exclude offsets for investment-related gains and losses by adding them to the reported net interest expense; and,
(2)correct mathematical errors contained in Kroman's calculation. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from Frederick Mines to Neal Halper entitled, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.and Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S.,” dated April 30, 2007. 2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market 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. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, selling expenses, and packing expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: 1) in substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and 2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. *See* sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we determined that sales of that model were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such cases, 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 these below-cost sales for Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman, and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. D. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as EP. 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 selling, G&A expenses, and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, 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. All the respondents in this review claimed that they sold rebar at a single LOT in their home and U.S. markets. Five of the respondents (Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman) reported that they sold rebar directly to various categories of customers in the home market, while the remaining company (Colakoglu) reported that it made both direct sales and sales through affiliated resellers to various categories of customers in the home market. Regarding U.S. sales, all respondents reported only EP sales to the United States to a single customer category ( *i.e.* , unaffiliated traders). Similar to their home market channels of distribution, five of these respondents reported direct sales to U.S. customers, while one respondent (Colakoglu) reported that it made all of its U.S. sales through an affiliated party in the United States. Regarding these latter sales, we have classified them as EP transactions, in accordance with our practice, because evidence on the record demonstrates that:
(1)all significant selling activities related to these sales ( *e.g.* , price negotiations, invoicing) were conducted by Colakoglu personnel in Turkey;
(2)the only selling functions provided by Colakoglu employees on behalf of the affiliated party include certain import-related expenses; and
(3)this affiliated party has no physical location or employees in the United States. *See 04-05 Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 26461, unchanged in the final results. To determine whether sales to any of these customer categories were made at different LOTs, we examined the stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution for each of these respondents. Regarding home market sales, each of the respondents reported that it performed identical selling functions across customer categories in the home market. After analyzing the data on the record with respect to these functions, we find that the respondents performed the same selling functions for their home market customers, regardless of customer category or channel of distribution. Regarding Colakoglu, although it made direct sales and sales through its affiliated resellers in the home market, we find that there is one home market LOT because: 1) the resellers do not have separate locations apart from Colakoglu's offices; and 2) all selling activities related to home market sales made by the affiliated resellers are performed by Colakoglu personnel. Therefore, we find that Colakoglu does not perform an additional layer of selling functions for the home market sales through its affiliated resellers. Accordingly, we find that all of the respondents made all sales at a single marketing stage ( *i.e.* , at one LOT) in the home market. Regarding U.S. sales, each of the respondents reported that it only made sales to one customer category through one channel of distribution in the U.S. market and, thus, identical selling functions were performed for all sales. Therefore, after analyzing the data on the record with respect to these functions, we find that the respondents made all sales at a single marketing stage ( *i.e.* , one LOT) in the U.S. market. Although each of the respondents provided certain additional services for U.S. sales and not home market sales, we did not find these differences to be material selling function distinctions significant enough to warrant a separate LOT for any respondent. Therefore, after analyzing the selling functions performed in each market, we find that the distinctions in selling functions are not material and thus, that the home market and U.S. LOTs are the same. Accordingly, we determined that sales in the U.S. and home markets during the POR for each respondent were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment is warranted for any of the respondents. E. Calculation of Normal Value 1. Colakoglu We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the Turkish lira
(YTL)price adjusted for *kur farki* ( *i.e.* , an adjustment to the YTL invoice price to account for the difference between the estimated and actual YTL value on the date of payment), because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained unchanged. The buyer merely paid the YTL-equivalent amount at the time of payment. This treatment is consistent with our treatment of these transactions in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. *See 04-05 Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 26461, unchanged in the final results. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank charges, exporter association fees, and commissions. Regarding commissions, Colakoglu incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by the lesser of the commission amount or home market indirect selling expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made an adjustment to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 2. Diler We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the YTL price adjusted for *kur farki* , because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained unchanged. For further discussion, see the “Colakoglu” section above. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank fees, and exporter association fees. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made an adjustment to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.411(b). 3. Ekinciler We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the YTL price adjusted for *kur farki* , because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained unchanged. For further discussion, see the “Colakoglu” section above. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for billing adjustments. In addition, where appropriate, we made deductions for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank charges, and exporter association fees. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made an adjustment to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.411(b). 4. Habas We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the YTL price adjusted for *kur farki* , because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained unchanged. For further discussion, see the “Colakoglu” section above. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank charges, and exporter association fees. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made an adjustment to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.411(b). 5. Kaptan We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank fees, exporter association fees, and commissions. Regarding commissions, Kaptan incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by the lesser of the commission amount or home market indirect selling expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made an adjustment to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.411(b). 6. Kroman We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the YTL price adjusted for *kur farki* , because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained unchanged. For further discussion, see the “Colakoglu” section above. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for billing adjustments. In addition, where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses and exporter association fees. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made an adjustment to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. *See* 19 CFR 351.411(b). Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415. Although the Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on exchange rates from the Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva). Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the respondents during the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006: Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. 0.13 ( *de minimis* ) Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S./ Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. 0.16 ( *de minimis* ) Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./ Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. 3.70 Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S. 0.22 ( *de minimis* ) Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. 0.00 Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S./ Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. 0.00 Disclosure and Public Hearing The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument:
(1)a statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and,
(3)a table of authorities. In addition, we note that we will provide interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments pertaining to our preliminary conclusions on the Competition Board's report once such conclusions are reached. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)the party's name, address and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and,
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of the administrative and new shipper reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Upon completion of the administrative and new shipper reviews, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to these reviews directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by Colakoglu, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman, as well as for certain sales made by Ekinciler, because we have the reported entered value of the U.S. sales, 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 Diler's and certain of Ekinciler's sales, we note that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. 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 calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of these reviews is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). We are preliminarily revoking the order with respect to Colakoglu's and Diler's exports of subject merchandise. If these revocations become final, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2006, and to refund all cash deposits collected. The final results of these reviews shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the All-Others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of the administrative and new shipper reviews, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of these reviews, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in these reviews, 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 these reviews 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 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 requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B)(iv), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214(i), 351.221(b)(4), and 351.222(f)(2)(iv). Dated: April 30, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-8583 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in US—Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and Partial Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 23, 2007, the U.S. Trade Representative instructed the Department of Commerce (the Department) to implement its findings under section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(URAA)regarding the offsetting of dumped sales with non-dumped sales in investigations involving average-to-average transactions. The Department issued its findings on April 9, 2007, regarding eleven investigations challenged by the European Communities before the World Trade Organization. The Department is now implementing those findings. DATES: The effective date of these determinations is April 23, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel O'Brien, William Kovatch, or Michael Rill, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1376,
(202)482-5052, or
(202)482-3058, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 22, 2007, the Department initiated twelve proceedings under section 129 of the URAA to implement the WTO dispute settlement panel's report in United States—Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”) (WT/DS294). In each proceeding, the Department recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin from the following antidumping investigations, applying the calculation methodology described in *Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin During an Antidumping Investigation; Final Modification; see* 71 FR 77722 (December 27, 2006): 1. Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel from the Netherlands (A-421-807). 2. Stainless Steel Bar From France (A-427-820). 3. Stainless Steel Bar From Germany (A-428-830). 4. Stainless Steel Bar From Italy (A-475-829). 5. Stainless Steel Bar From the United Kingdom (A-412-822). 6. Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Sweden (A-401-806). 7. Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain (A-469-807). 8. Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy (A-475-820). 9. Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium (A-423-808). 10. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy (A-475-824). 11. Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-quality Steel Plate From Italy (A-475-826). 12. Certain Pasta From Italy (A-475-818). On February 26, 2007, the Department issued its preliminary results and requested comments. After receiving comments and rebuttal comments from the interested parties, the Department issued its Final Results for the Section 129 Determinations in eleven of the twelve proceedings on April 9, 2007. 1 1 With respect to Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy (A-475-824), one interested party made allegations of computational errors in calculating the weighted-average dumping margin. The Department found that there was a reasonable basis to investigate the allegations further, and postponed its decision in that proceeding in order to place additional information on the administrative record, and allow interested parties additional time to comment. On April 20, 2007, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, the U.S. Trade Representative held consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to these determinations. On April 23, 2007, in accordance with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) of the URAA, the U.S. Trade Representative directed the Department to implement these determinations. Nature of the Proceedings Section 129 of the URAA governs the nature and effect of determinations issued by the Department to implement findings by WTO dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body. Specifically, section 129(b)(2) provides that “notwithstanding any provision of the Tariff Act of 1930,” within 180 days of a written request from the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department shall issue a determination that would render its actions not inconsistent with an adverse finding of a WTO panel or the Appellate Body. *See* 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(2). The Statement of Administrative Action, U.R.A.A., H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.
(1994)(SAA), variously refers to such a determination by the Department as a “new,” “second,” and “different” determination. *See* SAA at 1025, 1027. After consulting with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees, the U.S. Trade Representative may direct the Department to implement, in whole or in part, the new determination made under section 129. *See* 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(4). Pursuant to section 129(c), the new determination shall apply with respect to unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date on which the U.S. Trade Representative directs the Department to implement the new determination. *See* 19 U.S.C. 3538(c). The new determination is subject to judicial review separate and apart from judicial review of the Department's original determination. *See* 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vii). Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties to these proceedings are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Section 129 Determinations, from Stephen J. Claeys to David M. Spooner, dated April 9, 2007 (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Issues and Decisions Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce main building and can be accessed directly at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.* The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decisions Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum is appended to this notice. Final Antidumping Margins The recalculated margins, unchanged from the Preliminary Results for all cases, except the investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, are as follows:
(1)Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel From the Netherlands • The margin for Corus, the sole respondent, decreases from 2.59 percent to zero. Since Corus was the only respondent in the investigation, we are now revoking this order effective April 23, 2007 (the effective date).
(2)Stainless Steel Bar From France • The margin for UGITECH decreases from 3.9 percent to zero. We are now revoking this order for UGITECH effective April 23, 2007 (the effective date). • The margin for Aubert and Duval S.A. was based on total AFA. This margin does not change as a result of this proceeding. • Since there are no non-AFA, above *de minimis* margins remaining, pursuant to Department practice, the all others rate is based on a simple average of the zero margins and the AFA margins. Therefore, the all-others rate changes from 3.9 percent to 35.92 percent.
(3)Stainless Steel Bar From Germany • The margin for BGH decreases from 13.63 percent to 2.59 percent. • The margin for Einsal decreases from 4.17 percent to *de minimis* . We are now revoking this order for Einsal effective April 23, 2007 (the effective date). • The margin for Edelstahl Witten-Krefeld GmbH decreases from 15.40 percent to 10.82 percent. • The margin for Krupp Edelstahlprofile GmbH decreases from 32.32 percent to 31.25 percent. • The all-others rate changes from 16.96 percent to 15.16 percent.
(4)Stainless Steel Bar From Italy • The margin for Acciaiera Valbruna S.p.A. decreases from 2.50 percent to zero. We are now revoking this order for Acciaiera Valbruna S.p.A. effective April 23, 2007 (the effective date). • The margin for Acciaiera Foroni S.p.A. decreases from 7.07 percent to zero. We are now revoking this order for Acciaiera Foroni S.p.A. effective April 23, 2007 (the effective date). • Trafilerie Bedini S.r.l. was excluded from the order and that does not change as a result of this proceeding. • The margin for Cogne Acciai Speciali Srl was based on total AFA. This margin does not change as a result of this proceeding. • The margin for Rodacciai S.p.A. decreases from 3.83 percent to zero. We are now revoking this order for Rodacciai S.p.A. effective April 23, 2007 (the effective date). • Since there are no non-AFA above *de minimis* margins remaining, pursuant to Department practice, the all-others rate is based on a simple average of the zero margins and the AFA margins. Therefore, the all-others rate changes from 3.81 percent to 6.60 percent.
(5)Stainless Steel Bar From the United Kingdom • The margin for Corus Engineering Steels Ltd. decreases from 4.48 percent to zero. We are now revoking this order for Corus Engineering Steels Ltd. effective April 23, 2007 (the effective date). • Firth Rixon Special Steels Ltd. and Crownridge Stainless Steel Ltd.'s/Valkia Ltd.'s margins were based on total AFA. These margins do not change as a result of this proceeding. • Since there are no non-AFA above *de minimis* margins remaining, pursuant to Department practice, the all-others rate is based on a simple average of the zero margins and the AFA margins. Therefore, the all-others rate changes from 4.48 percent to 83.85 percent.
(6)Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Sweden • The margin for Fagersta Stainless AB decreases from 5.71 percent to zero. Since Fagersta Stainless AB was the only respondent in the investigation, we are now revoking this order effective April 23, 2007 (the effective date).
(7)Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain • The margin for Roldan S.A., the sole respondent, decreases from 4.76 percent to 2.71 percent. • The all-others rate changes from 4.76 percent to 2.71 percent.
(8)Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy • The margin for Cogne Acciai Speciali S.r.l. decreases from 12.73 percent to 11.25 percent. • Acciaiera Valbruna S.p.A. was excluded from the order and that does not change as a result of this proceeding. • The all-others rate changes from 12.73 percent to 11.25 percent.
(9)Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium • The margin for Ugine & ALZ Belgium (formerly ALZ N.V.), the sole respondent, decreases from 9.84 percent to 8.54 percent. • The all-others rate changes from 9.84 percent to 8.54 percent.
(10)Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy • The margin for Palini and Bertoli S.p.A. decreases from 7.85 percent to 7.64 percent. • ILVA S.p.A. was excluded from the order and that does not change as a result of this proceeding. • The all-others rate changes from 7.85 percent to 7.64 percent.
(11)Certain Pasta From Italy • The margin for Arrighi S.p.A. Industrie Alimentari decreases from 21.34 percent to 20.84 percent. • The margin for Liguori Pastificio Dal 1820 S.p.A. decreases from 12.41 percent to 12.14 percent. • The margin for Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. decreases from 18.30 percent to 18.23 percent. • The margin for La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. remains at 14.78 percent based on this recalculation. • De Matteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. and Delverde S.r.l. were excluded from the order and that does not change as a result of this proceeding. • F.lli De Cecco de Filippo Fara San Martino S.p.A.'s margin was based on total AFA. This margin does not change as a result of this proceeding. • The all-others rate changes from 12.09 percent to 16.51 percent. We note that Delverde S.r.l.'s margin in the investigation was a component of the all-others rate. However, since Delverde S.r.l. was later revoked from the order as a result of litigation relating to the investigation, its margin is no longer a component of the all others rate. We note also that, for cash deposit purposes, we deduct from the margin of dumping any export subsidies. On that basis, the new cash deposit rate that will be established for all others is 15.45 percent. Revocations, Cash Deposits and Continuation of the Suspension of Liquidation On April 23, 2007, in accordance with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) of the URAA, the U.S. Trade Representative, after consulting with the Department and Congress, directed the Department to implement these determinations. With respect to Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel from the Netherlands and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2007, (the effective date), and to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties. With respect to Stainless Steel Bar from France, we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties entries of the subject merchandise manufactured and exported by UGITECH, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2007, (the effective date), and to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties. We will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all other exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. With respect to Stainless Steel Bar from Germany, we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties entries of the subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Einsal, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2007, (the effective date), and to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties. We will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all other exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. With respect to Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties entries of the subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Acciaiera Valbruna S.p.A., Acciaiera Foroni S.p.A. and Rodacciai S.p.A., entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2007, (the effective date), and to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties. We will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all other exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. With respect to Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom, we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties entries of the subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Corus Engineering Steels Ltd., entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 23, 2007, (the effective date), and to discontinue collection of cash deposits of antidumping duties. We will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all other exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. With respect to Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Spain, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. With respect to Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. With respect to Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. With respect to Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Italy, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. With respect to Certain Pasta from Italy, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from all exporters or producers. CBP shall continue to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The Section 129 Determination all-others rate will be the new cash deposit rate for all exporters of subject merchandise for whom the Department has not calculated an individual rate. The cash deposit rates will remain unchanged for those companies that we are not revoking and whose cash deposit rates since the original investigation have been superseded by administrative reviews. These Section 129 Determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 129(c)(2)(A) of the URAA. Dated: April 30, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Issues Raised in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Whether the Department Has the Authority to Implement the WTO Appellate Body Decision Comment 2: Targeted Dumping Comment 3: Treatment of Unliquidated Entries Comment 4: Calculation of All-Others Rate Comment 5: Clerical Error Allegation in the Investigation of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy Comment 6: Clarification of Valbruna Exporter Name Comment 7: The Department's Briefing Schedule [FR Doc. 07-2212 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 20
Traces to 20 documents
CFR
- Revocation of orders; termination of suspended investigations.§ 351.222
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Time limits for submission of factual information.§ 351.301
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Record of proceedings.§ 351.104
- Sales used in calculating normal value; transactions between affiliated parties.§ 351.403
- Definitions.§ 351.102
- Differences in circumstances of sale§ 351.410
- Differences in physical characteristics.§ 351.411
- Conversion of currency.§ 351.415
- De minimis net countervailable subsidies and weighted-average dumping margins disregarded.§ 351.106
7 references not yet in our index
- 7 USC 1621-1627
- 41 USC 46-48c
- 19 CFR 351
- 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
- 43 F.3d 1442
- 117 F.3d 1401
- 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice; withdrawal
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
F. App'x43 F.3d 1442
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Cites 27 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources