[Federal Register: May 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24535-24541]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05my08-439]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-489-807)
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 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 of the antidumping duty order certain steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey with respect to four\1\
companies. The respondents which the Department selected for individual
review are Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis
Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler''); and Habas Sinai ve Tibbi
Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas). The respondents which were not
selected for individual review are listed in the ``Preliminary Results
of Review'' section of this notice. The review covers the period April
1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This figure does not include companies for which the
Department has rescinded or preliminarily rescinded this
administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We preliminarily determine that sales were made by Ekinciler below
normal value (NV). In addition, based on the preliminary results for
the respondents selected for individual review, we have preliminarily
determined a weighted-average margin for those companies that were not
selected for individual review but were responsive to the Department's
requests for information. If these preliminary results are adopted in
the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
We have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect
to three companies because these companies had no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR.
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 5, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, AD/CVD Operations, Office
2, Import Administration - Room 1870, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0656.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 2, 2007, 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, 72 FR 15650 (Apr. 2,
2007).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on April 27 and 30, 2007,
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 Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu
Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Colakgolu''); Diler Demir Celik
Endustri ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret
A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler''); Ekinciler;
Habas; Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (IDC); and Nursan Celik Sanayi ve
Haddecilik, A.S. and Nursan Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Nursan'').
As part of their requests, Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas also
requested that the Department revoke the antidumping order with regard
to them, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b). Also, on April 30, 2007,
the domestic interested parties, Nucor Corporation, Gerdau AmeriSteel
Corporation and Commercial Metals Company, requested an administrative
review for Colakoglu, Diler, Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret
A.S. and Ege Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Ege Celik''), Ekinciler,
Habas, Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. and Kaptan Metal
Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. (collectively ``Kaptan''), and Kroman
Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman) 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).
In May 2007, the Department initiated an administrative review for
the nine companies listed above and requested that each provide data on
the quantity and value (Q&V) of its exports of subject merchandise to
the United States during the period of review (POR). See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request
for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 29968 (May 30, 2007).
On June 4, 2007, we received responses to the Department's Q&V
questionnaire from each company. In their responses, three exporters
(i.e., Ege Celik, Kaptan, and Kroman) informed the Department that they
had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Because we confirmed this with CBP, we are preliminarily rescinding the
review with respect to these companies. For further discussion, see the
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice.
Based upon our consideration of the responses to the Q&V
questionnaire received and the resources available to the Department,
we determined that it was not practicable to examine all exporters/
producers of subject merchandise for which a review was requested. As a
result, on July 16, 2007, we selected the four largest producers/
[[Page 24536]]
exporters of rebar from Turkey during the POR, Colakoglu, Diler,
Ekinciler, and Habas, as the mandatory respondents in this proceeding.
See the July 16, 2007, Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys from James
Maeder entitled, ``2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Selection of
Respondents for Individual Review.'' On this same date, we issued the
antidumping duty questionnaire to these four companies.
In August 2007, we received responses to the questionnaire, as well
as requests for voluntary respondent status, from IDC and Nursan. In
September 2007, we received responses to the questionnaire from
Ekinciler and Habas.
In November 2007, we rescinded the administrative review with
respect to Colakoglu and Diler because the antidumping duty order was
revoked with respect to them in the 2005-2006 administrative review.
See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of
Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Administrative Review, 72 FR
65011 (Nov. 19, 2007). Also in November 2007, we declined to accept IDC
and Nursan as voluntary respondents, despite a renewed request from IDC
that we do so in light of the Department's determination to revoke
merchandise produced and exported by Colakoglu and Diler from the
order. See the November 8, 2007, Memorandum to James Maeder from the
Team entitled, ``2006-2007 Administrative Antidumping Duty Review on
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Voluntary
Respondent Requests.''
Also in November 2007, we postponed the preliminary results of this
review until no later than April 29, 2008. 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, 72 FR 64583 (Nov. 16, 2007).
During the period November 2007 through January 2008, we issued
supplemental questionnaires to Ekinciler and Habas. We received
responses to these questionnaires in December 2007 and January 2008.
In February 2008, we conducted an on-site verification of
Ekinciler's and Habas' cost responses in Turkey. We intend to verify
the sales responses of these respondents in May 2008.
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 this order is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.
Partial Rescission of Review
On April 30, 2007, the Department received timely requests, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), from the domestic interested
parties to conduct a review of Ege Celik, Kaptan, and Kroman. The
Department initiated a review of these three companies and requested
that they supply data on the Q&V of their exports of rebar during the
POR. On June 4, 2007, Ege Celik, Kaptan, and Kroman submitted responses
to the Q&V questionnaire indicating that they did not export rebar the
United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with information
obtained from CBP. See the April 29, 2008, memorandum to the File from
Irina Itkin, entitled ``Confirmation of No Shipments for Certain
Companies in the 2006-2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey.'' Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the
Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with
respect to these companies. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52065, 52067 (Sept. 12,
2007); 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, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005).
Notice of Intent To Revoke, in Part
As noted above, on April 27 and 30, 2008, respectively, Habas and
Ekinciler 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: 1)
Ekinciler and Habas 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; and 2) they sold subject merchandise to the United
States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three
consecutive years. Ekinciler and Habas 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). Our analysis of each company's revocation request is presented
below.
1. Ekinciler
Regarding Ekinciler, we do not find that its request for revocation
meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). Specifically, we
find that Ekinciler has sold rebar at less than NV in the two previous
administrative reviews in which it was involved (i.e., its dumping
margins were above de minimis). See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review and Determination to Revoke in Part, 72
FR 62630 (Nov. 6, 2007) (2005-2006 Final Results) and Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082 (Nov. 7,
2006) (2004-2005 Final Results), unchanged in Notice of Amended Final
Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in
Part: Certain Steel Concrete
[[Page 24537]]
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey, 71 FR 75711 (Dec. 18, 2006) (2004-2005
Amended Final Results). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that
Ekinciler does not 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 Ekinciler should not be revoked.
Ekinciler contends that it is entitled to revocation in this
segment of the proceeding, based on its claim that it anticipates that
it will receive a zero or de minimis margin for the prior reviews,
following completion of the court's review of Ekinciler's appeal of the
final results. However, it is not the Department's policy to take
pending court appeals into account when determining whether revocation
of the merchandise produced and exported by a particular company from
an existing antidumping duty order is warranted. See, e.g., Certain
Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, and Notice of Revocation (in Part), 59 FR 15159,
15166 (Mar. 31, 1994); Color Television Receivers from the Republic of
Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR
4408, 4414 (Feb. 6, 1996). While we acknowledge that the Department's
determinations in the two prior segments of this proceeding are
currently in litigation, there is no final and conclusive judgment from
any court supporting Ekinciler's arguments. In fact, the Court of
International Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department's analysis in the
2004-2005 review which resulted in a dumping margin above de minimis
for Ekinciler. Moreover, our position in that litigation remains
unchanged - namely that the final results were supported by substantial
evidence and are fully in accordance with U.S. antidumping law. Thus,
if anything, the CIT's decision supports our conclusion that Ekinciler
continued to dump subject merchandise over the last three years, and
revocation pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b) is not warranted.
2. Habas
We preliminarily determine that the request from Habas meets all of
the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b) and that revocation with regard to
Habas is warranted. With regard to the criteria of subsection 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations show that Habas sold
rebar at not less than NV during the current review period. See the
``Preliminary Results of the Review'' section below. In addition, Habas
sold rebar at not less than NV in the two previous administrative
reviews in which it was involved (i.e., its dumping margins were zero
or de minimis). See 2005-2006 Final Results and 2004-2005 Final Results
unchanged in 2004-2005 Amended Final Results.
Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Habas, we
preliminarily determine that it sold the subject merchandise in the
United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years
cited by it to support its request for revocation. See the April 29,
2008, Memorandum to the File from Irina Itkin entitled, ``Analysis of
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.'s Commercial
Quantities for Request for Revocation.'' Thus, we preliminarily find
that Habas had zero or de minimis dumping margins for its 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
rebar produced and exported by Habas is no longer warranted for the
following reasons: 1) the company had zero or de minimis margins for a
period of at least three consecutive years; 2) the company has agreed
to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it
has 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 subject merchandise produced
and exported by Habas qualifies for revocation of the order on rebar
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), and that the order with respect to
such merchandise should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are
affirmed in our final results, we will revoke this order in part with
respect to rebar produced and exported by Habas 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, 2007, and instruct CBP
to refund any cash deposits for such entries.
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. For Ekinciler, because we used two
cost periods (see below), we did not compare products across periods.
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, Ekinciler and Habas argued that we
should use contract date as the date of sale for their U.S. sales in
this review. After analyzing the record, we determine that contract
date is inappropriate with regard to Habas because: 1) we previously
found that the terms of sale (i.e., price and quantity) were changeable
after the contract date for Habas (see Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Determination to
Revoke in Part, 72 FR 25253, 25256 (May 4, 2007) (2005-2006 Preliminary
Results), unchanged in 2005-2006 Final Results, and Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455,
26458 (May 5, 2006) (2004-2005 Preliminary Results), unchanged in 2004-
2005 Final Results); and 2) we find that there were no changes in the
sales process, customers, types of contracts, etc., between the
previous
[[Page 24538]]
administrative review and the current POR for Habas. Where the
Department does not use contract date, it uses the earlier of invoice
or shipment date as the date of sale. Therefore, for Habas, we have
used whichever of these dates is appropriate on a transaction-specific
basis.
Further, regarding Ekinciler, we determined that the appropriate
U.S. date of sale is contract date because, as in the two previous
administrative reviews, 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.), and there were no changes in the sales process
between this and prior segments.
A. 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, ocean freight expenses, marine insurance
expenses, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
B. 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 and
handling charges, surveying expenses, and ocean freight expenses, where
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 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)(B) 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., 2005-2006 Preliminary Results, 72 FR
at 25257, unchanged in 2005-2006 Final Results; 2004-2005 Preliminary
Results, 71 FR at 26459, unchanged in 2004-2005 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 Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final
Results, and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in
Part, and Notice of Intent To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8,
2005).
B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
Ekinciler and Habas made sales of rebar to affiliated parties in
the home market during the POR, as defined in section 771(33) of the
Act. 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 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 2004-2005 administrative review) at the time of
the initiation of this administrative review. 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.
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. Ekinciler
In its questionnaire response, Ekinciler requested that the
Department calculate its costs on a quarterly basis because the cost of
scrap increased sharply during the POR. After analyzing this request,
we disagree that the change in scrap prices was significant enough to
warrant a departure from the Department's normal practice of computing
COP on an annual basis. Nonetheless, because we found that a
significant amount of Ekinciler's home market sales have a date of sale
prior to the POR and that the cost of production increased appreciably
from the prior POR to the current POR, we requested that Ekinciler
provide the COP data from the prior review period (i.e., April 1, 2005,
through March 31, 2006). For these preliminary results, we have used
two separate annualized cost periods to calculate Ekinciler's costs in
order to match sales of goods to the cost of manufacturing for the
period in which those goods were sold. Thus, we used two cost periods
for Ekinciler. For those sales with a date of sale prior to the POR, we
used the average POR cost from the 2005-2006 administrative review, as
adjusted for the final results.
B. Habas
We made no adjustments to the COP information reported by Habas.
[[Page 24539]]
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 Ekinciler and Habas 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)(i) 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 constructed
value, 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.
Both respondents in this review claimed that they sold rebar at a
single LOT in their home and U.S. markets. Ekinciler and Habas reported
that they sold rebar directly to various categories of customers in the
home market. Regarding U.S. sales, both 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, Ekinciler and Habas reported direct sales to U.S.
customers.
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. 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., at 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 either of the respondents.
E. Calculation of Normal Value
1. Ekinciler
We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. 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
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) 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). Consistent with the use of production costs for the two
cost periods noted above, we have relied on the corresponding
production costs for purposes of calculating our difference in
merchandise adjustment.
2. 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 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 2005-2006 Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 25260,
unchanged in the final results.
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 sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
[[Page 24540]]
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).
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, 2006, through March 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./Ekinciler Dis Ticaret 3.42
A.S........................................................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S........ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins
calculated for those companies selected for individual review,
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse
facts available (AFA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S................................ 3.42
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik, A.S. /Nursan Dis Ticaret 3.42
A.S........................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the
party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of
participants; and, 3) a list of issues to be discussed. 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 review, 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 review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the
final results of this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by Ekinciler,
because Ekinciler is the importer of record, we have the reported
entered value of the U.S. sales. Therefore, 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 Habas' sales, we note that it 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.
For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual
review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted
average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected
for individual review excluding any which are de minimis or determined
entirely on AFA.
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 shipments
of rebar produced and exported by Habas. If this revocation becomes
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, 2007, and to refund all cash
deposits collected.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by
the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated
duties, where applicable.
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 (except shipments of rebar
produced and exported by Habas, as noted above) entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of the administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific
company listed above will be that established in the final results of
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
[[Page 24541]]
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 the results of this administrative
review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 29, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9887 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S