[Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 62630-62633]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06no07-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-489-807
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper
Review and Determination To Revoke in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review and new
shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete
reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. These reviews cover six
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States.
The period of review (POR) is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain 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.''
Finally, we have determined to revoke the antidumping duty order
with respect to Turkish rebar produced and exported by 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'').
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 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
The administrative review covers the following five producers/
exporters: 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 Metal Dis
Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. and Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret
A.S. (collectively ``Kaptan''). The new shipper review covers one
producer/exporter, Kroman Celik
[[Page 62631]]
Sanayii A.S. and Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S.
(collectively ``Kroman'').
On May 4, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. See 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, 72 FR 25253 (May 4, 2007)
(Preliminary Results).
In August 2007, based on the information on the record, we
preliminarily found that there is no evidence that the respondents in
these reviews engaged in anti-competitive practices in Turkey during
the POR, as alleged by the domestic industry (i.e., Gerdau AmeriSteel
Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor
Corporation). For further discussion, see the August 31, 2007,
Memorandum from James Maeder, 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'' (the Competition
Board memo). See also the ``Turkish Government Competition Board's
Report'' section of this notice, below.
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of these
reviews, as well as on the preliminary findings set forth in the
Competition Board memo. In August 2007, we received case briefs with
respect to the preliminary results from the domestic industry and four
of the six respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kaptan),
and we received rebuttal briefs with respect to the preliminary results
from all parties participating in these administrative reviews. In
addition, in September 2007, we received case briefs with respect to
the preliminary findings in the Competition Board memo from the
domestic industry, and we received rebuttal briefs from all
respondents.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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, 2005, through March 31, 2006.
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 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 requests from Colakoglu and Diler meet
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 Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar at not less than NV during the
current review period. 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, 65084 (Nov. 7, 2006) and 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, 67667 (Nov. 8, 2005). Also, we find that application
of the antidumping duty order 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)
each 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 find that Colakoglu and Diler qualify 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 Colakoglu, as well as with
respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by Diler. For
further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision
Memo) accompanying this notice at Comment 1.
Effective Date of Revocation
This revocation applies to all entries of subject merchandise that
are produced and exported by Colakoglu and Diler, and are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2006.
The Department will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all
such entries and will instruct U.S. Customer and Border Protection
(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, 2006.
Bona Fide Sale Analysis
In the preliminary results, we found that Kroman's reported U.S.
sale during the POR was a bona fide sale, as required by 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c),
[[Page 62632]]
based on the totality of the facts on the record. 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.
For the final results, the Department continues to find that
Kroman's sole U.S. sale during the POR was a bona fide commercial
transaction.
Turkish Government Competition Board's Report
As noted in our preliminary findings with respect to the
Competition Board's report, we did not rely on the evidence or
conclusions in the Competition Board's report as the basis for any
findings in these reviews. Rather, we 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.
See the ``Competition Board Memo.'' For purposes of the final results,
the domestic industry neither provided any new arguments with respect
to the information on the record pertaining to the Competition Board's
report or the respondents' reported costs, prices, and affiliations
that were not already address in our preliminary findings, nor
commented on specific sections of our preliminary findings with which
it disagreed. Rather, we find that the domestic industry merely stated
its opposition to our preliminary findings and reiterated its previous
arguments. Therefore, we continue to find that: 1) there is no basis to
find that the respondents are affiliated, and a collapsing analysis is
neither warranted nor necessary; 2) there is no basis to conclude that
the sales and cost data in these reviews are distorted by non-market
considerations and, thus, it is appropriate to rely on this data for
purposes of the final results; 3) Kroman is entitled to a new shipper
review because it has met the requirements set forth under 19 CFR
351.214(b); and 4) the use of adverse facts available, pursuant to
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, is not warranted for any of the
respondents in the administrative review or new shipper review because
the respondents provided all requested information and have cooperated
fully in these segments of the proceeding. For further discussion, see
the Decision Memo at Comment 1.
Cost of Production
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an
investigation to determine whether Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, Habas,
Kaptan, and Kroman 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 sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that
Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman made below-cost
sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded
these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the
basis for determining NV pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to these reviews,
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
these reviews 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. Because the margin calculations
for Habas and Kaptan have not changed from the preliminary results, the
preliminary calculations placed on the records of these reviews are
adopted as the final margin calculations.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages
exist for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S...... 0.32 (de
minimis)
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ Yazici Demir 0.14 (de
Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S./ Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. minimis)
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./Ekinciler Dis Ticaret 1.66
A.S........................................................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S........ 0.22 (de
minimis)
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ Kaptan Metal 0.00
Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S................................
Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S./ Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve 0.00
Pazarlama A.S..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. 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.
Moreover, for all sales by Diler, as well as for the remaining
sales made by Ekinciler, these companies did not report entered values
for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated
importer-specific assessment rates for each respondent's merchandise by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for its 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.
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 intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these final results of review.
[[Page 62633]]
Because we have revoked the order with respect to subject
merchandise produced and exported by Colakoglu, as well as with respect
to subject merchandise produced and exported by Diler, 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 Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 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. This clarification will also apply to
POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we
are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments,
because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of
subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination.
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.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for
all shipments of rebar from Turkey (except shipments from Colakoglu and
Diler, as noted above) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of
the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be
the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, de
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit
will be zero; 2) for merchandise produced by Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.
and exported by Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S., the
combination cash deposit rate will be 0.00 percent; 3) 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; 4) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 5) 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
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) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 31, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum
General Issues
1. Issues Related to the Turkish Government Competition Board's (the
Competition Board's) Report
2. Date of Sale for Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret
A.S. (collectively ``Colakoglu'') and Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas)
3. Model Matching
4. Methodology for Determining Contemporaneous Sales in the Home Market
Company-Specific Issues
5. General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses for Colakoglu
6. Depreciation Expenses for Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and
Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler'')
7. G&A Expenses for Ekinciler
8. Subcontracted Rolling Costs for Habas
9. Affiliation Issue for Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. and
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Kaptan'')
10. Affiliated-Party Loading Services for Kaptan
[FR Doc. E7-21808 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S