[Federal Register: November 8, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 67665-67668]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08no05-18]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-807]
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part,
and Determination To Revoke in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars
(rebar) from Turkey (70 FR 23990). This review covers four producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period
of review (POR) is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. We are
rescinding the review with respect to 18 companies because they had no
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
In addition, we have determined to revoke the antidumping duty order
with respect to an additional exporter, ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve
Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS).
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled
``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, Office
of AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0656 and (202) 482-0498, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This review covers the following four producers/exporters:
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret (collectively
``Colakoglu''); Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively ``Diler''); Habas Tibbi ve Sinai Gazlar Istihsal
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and ICDAS.
On May 6, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on rebar from Turkey. See 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 (May 6, 2005) (Preliminary Results).
Prior to the preliminary results, the following companies informed
the Department that they had no shipments to the United States during
the POR: Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas); Cemtas Celik
Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas); Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan); Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
(Ege Celik); Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik San A.S.
(collectively ``Ekinciler''); Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co.
(Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir); Kaptan Demir Celik
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan); Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi
Turk A.S. (Metas); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan
Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan); Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri
A.S. (Sivas); and Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali). We
reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and confirmed
that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these
companies. We also confirmed with CBP data that Ege Metal Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal); Kardemir--Karabuk Demir Celik
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk); Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman);
Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum); and Ucel
Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel) did not have entries of
subject merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding
our review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal,
Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas,
Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. For further discussion, see
the ``Partial
[[Page 67666]]
Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review.
In June and July 2005, we received case briefs from the petitioners
(i.e., Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI
Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation), Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, and
rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and
ICDAS.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated,
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004.
Partial Rescission of Review
As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal,
Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas,
Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel had no shipments and/or
entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We
have confirmed this with CBP data. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are
rescinding our review with respect to these companies. See, e.g.,
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004)
(2002-2003 Rebar Final).
Determination To Revoke Order, in Part
The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act). While Congress has not specified the
procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the
Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described
in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that a company
requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) A certification
that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than
normal value (NV) in the current review period and that the company
will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a
certification that the company sold commercial quantities of the
subject merchandise to the United States in each of the three years
forming the basis of the request; and (3) an agreement to immediate
reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less
than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the
Department will consider: (1) Whether the company in question has sold
subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three
consecutive years; (2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its
immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at
less than NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the
antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19
CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). See Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 67 FR 69719, 69720 (Nov. 19,
2002).
We have determined that the request from ICDAS meets all of the
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria of
subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show
that ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV during the current review
period. In addition, ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV in the two
previous administrative reviews in which it was involved (i.e., ICDAS's
dumping margin was zero or de minimis). See 2002-2003 Rebar Final and
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results,
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and
Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 68 FR 53127 (Sept. 9, 2003). Also,
we find that application of the antidumping duty order to ICDAS 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. For further discussion, see Comment 18 of
the accompanying ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memo)
from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated November 2, 2005. Therefore, we find that
ICDAS qualifies for revocation of the antidumping duty order on rebar
under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Accordingly, we are revoking the order with
respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS.
Effective Date of Revocation
This revocation applies to all entries of subject merchandise that
are produced and exported by ICDAS, and are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2004. The Department
will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all such entries and
will instruct CBP to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department
will further instruct CBP to refund with interest any cash deposits on
entries made on or after April 1, 2004.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether the respondents participating in the
review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the
POR at prices below their costs of production (COP) within the meaning
of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for
these final results following the same methodology as in the
Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the Decision Memo.
We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of
trade. See section 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that
Colakoglu, Diler, Habas and ICDAS made below-cost sales not in the
ordinary course of trade.
[[Page 67667]]
Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review and to which we have responded are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is
adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all
issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit,
room B-099, of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain
changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the
relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages
exist for the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu........................................... 0.00
Diler............................................... 0.31
Habas............................................... 26.07
ICDAS............................................... 0.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
for all of Habas's sales and certain of ICDAS's sales and 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 Colakoglu's and Diler's sales, as well as certain
of ICDAS'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 export prices.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because we have revoked the order with respect to subject
merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS, we will order CBP to
terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April
1, 2004, and to refund all cash deposits collected.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review
for all shipments of rebar from Turkey (except shipments from ICDAS
noted above) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on
or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of
the Act: 1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be
the rates indicated above (except for ICDAS and Diler, whose weighted-
average margins are de minimis, where no cash deposit will be
required); 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, or in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer
of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the all
others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(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 doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: November 2, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum
General Issues
1. Cost Averaging Periods for Habas and ICDAS
2. Depreciation Expenses
3. Matching Criteria
4. Exchange Rates
5. Universe of Sales
6. Date of Sale for Habas and ICDAS
7. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results
Company-Specific Issues
8. Cost of Billets for Colakoglu
9. Financing Expenses for Colakoglu
10. Movement Expenses Provided by an Affiliate of Diler
11. Affiliated Party Billet Purchases for Diler
12. Edge and Defective Rebar Offsets to Cost of Manufacturing (COM) for
Diler
13. Offsets to General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses for Diler
14. Denominator of the G&A and Interest Expense Calculations for Diler
15. Interest Expense Calculation for Diler
16. Omitted Costs for Diler
17. Offsets to G&A Expenses for Habas
18. Revocation for ICDAS
19. Affiliated Party Sales in ICDAS's Home Market
20. Arm's-Length Test for ICDAS
21. Level of Trade (LOT) for ICDAS
22. Whether to Treat ICDAS's U.S. Sales as Export Price (EP) or
Constructed Export Price (CEP) Sales
[[Page 67668]]
23. Collapsing Issue for ICDAS
24. Startup Adjustment for ICDAS
25. Gain on Sale of Ship for ICDAS
26. Calculation of G&A Expenses for ICDAS
27. Exchange Rate Gains for ICDAS
[FR Doc. 05-22242 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S