[Federal Register: September 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 51598-51602]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10se07-17]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-489-807
Notice of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S., a producer of subject merchandise, and its affiliated
export trading company, Ege Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Ege
Celik''), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel
concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey for the period April 1,
2006, through September 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that,
during the period of review (POR), Ege Celik did not sell the subject
merchandise at less than normal value (NV). If the preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if the
importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of
this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. The final results will issued 90 days after the date of
issuance of these preliminary results, unless extended.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 6, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), the
Department received a timely request from Ege Celik for a new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. On November
7, 2006, the Department found that the request for review with respect
to Ege Celik met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR
351.214(b) and initiated an antidumping duty new shipper review
covering the period April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. See
Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 71 FR 66503 (Nov. 15,
2006).
We issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Ege Celik in
November 2006. Ege Celik submitted a response to this questionnaire in
December 2006. In January 2007, we issued a supplemental questionnaire
to Ege Celik. Ege Celik responded to this supplemental questionnaire in
the same month.
Also in January 2007, the domestic interested parties requested
that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Ege
Celik. After analyzing this request, we initiated a sales-below-cost
investigation for Ege Celik in February 2007. See the Memorandum to
James Maeder from The Team entitled, ``Petitioners' Allegation of Sales
Below the Cost of Production for Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi Ve Ticaret
A.S. and Ege Dis Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik Cost Allegation Memo), dated
February 26, 2007.
In February 2007, the domestic interested parties alleged that Ege
Celik was engaged in anti-competitive practices in the home and U.S.
markets during the 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 determine that Ege
Celik is affiliated with all Turkish rebar producers named in the
Competition Board report and rescind the new shipper review for it on
the basis of this affiliation finding. In February and March 2007, we
received comments from Ege Celik 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, the Department published an extension of the time
period for issuing the preliminary results of this review by an
additional 120 days, or until September 4, 2007, in accordance with
section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 72 FR 13747 (Mar. 23,
2007).
Also in March 2007, we issued an additional supplemental
questionnaire to Ege Celik. Ege Celik submitted a response to this
questionnaire, as well as a response to the cost of production (COP)
questionnaire, in April 2007.
In April 2007, the domestic interested parties submitted a second
report by the Competition Board, which they allege: 1) demonstrates
that several rebar producers/exporters were engaged in close supplier
relationships; and 2) should be relied upon by the Department to make a
finding that Ege Celik and other rebar producers/exporters are
affiliated.
We issued supplemental COP questionnaires in May and June 2007 and
received responses in June 2007.
Sales and cost verifications of Ege Celik were conducted in June
and July 2007.
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
[[Page 51599]]
convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006.
Bona Fide Sale Analysis
For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Ege
Celik'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
Ege Celik'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
Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S.,''
dated July 13, 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 Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S.'s Bona Fides As A New Shipper in the
New Shipper Review of Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey,'' dated September 4, 2007, for further discussion of our price
and quantity analysis.
Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department
preliminarily finds that Ege Celik's sole U.S. sale during the POR was
a bona fide commercial transaction.
Turkish Government Competition Board Finding
On February 1, 2007, the domestic interested parties submitted a
report by the Turkish Government Competition Board regarding the
Turkish steel industry. The domestic interested parties argue that this
report demonstrates that Ege Celik engaged in anti-competitive behavior
prior to and during the POR by colluding with other rebar producers/
exporters to manipulate home market and export prices and to suppress
costs. The domestic interested parties assert that the Department
should collapse all Turkish rebar producers into a single entity and
find that Ege Celik does not qualify as a new shipper because of
affiliation with other rebar producers/exporters. The domestic
interested parties further contend that the Department should, as a
result, rescind the initiation of the new shipper review for Ege Celik.
However, in the event that the Department continues to conduct this new
shipper review, the domestic interested parties argue that the
Department should 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.
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 rebar producers/exporters were engaged in
close supplier relationships; and 2) should be relied upon by the
Department to make a finding that Ege Celik and other rebar producers/
exporters are affiliated.
Ege Celik has objected to the Department's acceptance of these
submissions because: 1) it is inappropriate to consider antitrust
findings in the context of an antidumping duty proceeding; 2) the
Competition Board's ruling is not final, as it is under appeal in the
Turkish judicial system; and 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. Ege Celik did not submit arguments regarding
the domestic interested parties' April 9, 2007, submission.
We have not relied on the evidence or conclusions in the Board's
report as the basis for any findings in this review. Rather, we have
investigated whether the facts during the POR would cause us to dismiss
reported home market prices or costs within the confines of U.S.
antidumping duty law and regulations. Based on Ege Celik's responses to
our questions on this topic and our verification of these responses, as
well as our findings with respect to the content, and context, of
meetings held by the Turkish Iron and Steel Producers' Association
during the POR, we have preliminarily concluded that: 1) Ege Celik is
not affiliated with other producers of rebar and is therefore entitled
to this new shipper review; and 2) there is no evidence that Ege
Celik's home market sales prices were not competitively set during the
POR, and as such these prices are useable for purposes of our margin
analysis. For further discussion, see the August 31, 2007, Memorandum
from Shawn Thompson, Irina Itkin, and Brianne Riker to David M.
Spooner, entitled ``Preliminary Finding on Issues Related to the
Turkish Government Competition Board's Reports in Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey'' and the July 9, 2007,
Memorandum to the File from Irina Itkin and Nichole Zink entitled
``Verification of the Sales Response of Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi Ve
Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik) in the Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of Certain Concrete Steel Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey.''
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether Ege Celik's sale of rebar from Turkey was 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 this comparison 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 an appropriate
product comparison to the U.S. sale. Where there were no sales of
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of
trade, we compared the U.S. sale 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 Ege Celik 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 Ege Celik's U.S. sale, 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, Ege Celik argued that we should use
contract date
[[Page 51600]]
as the date of sale for its U.S. sale. The Department's regulations at
19 CFR 351.401(i) state that the Department will normally use the date
of invoice as the date of sale, unless a different date better reflects
the date on which the material terms of sale are established. We have
analyzed the data on the record and preliminarily find that the
material terms of sale were set at the contract date, given that the
terms did not change prior to invoicing. Further, because this is the
first time that the Department is conducting a review of Ege Celik,
there is no prior evidence on the record that the terms of sale were
changeable after the contract date. Therefore, in accordance with our
practice, we preliminarily find that the appropriate U.S. date of sale
is the contract date. 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.
We based EP on the packed price 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 (offset by freight
commission revenue), U.S. customs duties, U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses, and customs bond fees, 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 Ege Celik's home market sales of the foreign
like product to the volume of its U.S. sale of subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this
comparison, we determined that Ege Celik had a viable home market
during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.
In accordance with our practice, we excluded home market sales of
non-prime merchandise made by Ege Celik 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; and 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. Cost of Production Analysis
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ege Celik made home
market sales at prices below its COP in this review because of
information contained in the cost allegation properly filed by the
domestic interested parties. As a result, the Department initiated an
investigation to determine whether Ege Celik made home market sales
during the POR at prices below its COP. See the ``Ege Celik 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 Ege Celik's 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 Ege Celik in its
questionnaire responses, except for the following instances where the
information was not appropriately quantified or valued:
1) We disallowed an adjustment to the total cost of manufacturing
for packing materials that had been returned to the warehouse.
2) We added an amount for duty drawback to the total cost of
manufacturing.
3) We adjusted the numerator of the G&A expense calculation to
include the revenue from the sale of fixed assets.
4) We adjusted the denominator of the G&A and financial expense
calculations to exclude packing expenses which had been reported in the
home market and U.S. sales listings.
5) We revised the financial expense ratio based on the fiscal year
2006 audited consolidated financial statements.
For further discussion, see the Memorandum from Trinette Boyd to Neal
Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results in the New Shipper Review--Ege
Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret A.S.,'' dated
September 4, 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 Ege Celik'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 Ege Celik'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 new shipper review, we disregarded these below-cost
sales for Ege Celik and used the remaining sales as the basis for
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 51601]]
C. 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 level of trade (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
expenses, 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.
Ege Celik claimed that it sold rebar at a single LOT in its home
and U.S. markets. Specifically, Ege Celik reported that it only made
sales to one customer category (i.e., trading companies) through one
channel of distribution in the home market and identical selling
functions were performed for all sales. After analyzing the data on the
record with respect to these functions, we find that the Ege Celik made
all sales at a single marketing stage (i.e., one LOT) in the home
market. Further, because Ege Celik only reported one U.S. sale during
the POR, we find that there is a single marketing stage (i.e., one LOT)
in the U.S. market.
Although Ege Celik provided certain additional services related to
freight and brokerage and handling for its U.S. sale and not home
market sales, we did not find these differences to be material selling
function distinctions significant enough to warrant a separate LOT.
Therefore, we find that the home market sales and U.S. sales were made
at the same LOT. Accordingly, we determined that no LOT adjustment is
warranted.
D. Calculation of Normal Value
We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b),
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for exporter association fees,
bank charges, and credit 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).
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
the New 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 New Shipper Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following percentage margin exists for Ege Celik for the period April
1, 2006, through September 30, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Ege Dis Ticaret 0.00
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 5 days after the deadline for filing the case briefs.
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 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 this review, including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any written briefs, within 90 days of publication of
these preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of the new shipper review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to
issue appraisement instructions for Ege Celik directly to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final results of this new shipper
review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because we have the reported
entered value of Ege Celik's U.S. sale, we have calculated an importer-
specific assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sale to the total
entered value of that sale. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if the
importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of
this review 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).
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 applies 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).
[[Page 51602]]
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 new shipper review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for Ege Celik (i.e.,
for subject merchandise both manufactured and exported by Ege Celik)
will be that established in the final results of this review, except if
the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit
rate will be zero; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies
not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue
to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 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.
This new shipper review is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR
351.214(i).
Dated: September 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-17758 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S