[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53382-53387]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11se06-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-428-816)
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Nucor Corporation (the
petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-
to-length carbon steel plate (CTL Plate) from Germany for the period of
review (POR) August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. This review covers
AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, manufacturer of the subject merchandise,
and its U.S. affiliate, Arcelor International America, LLC (AIA)
(collectively, Dillinger).
We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Dillinger did not
make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) (i.e.,
sales were made at de minimis dumping margins). If these preliminary
results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding
should also submit with them: (1) A statement of the issues and (2) a
brief summary of the comments. Further, parties submittingwritten
comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic
version of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Dennis McClure, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
[[Page 53383]]
telephone: (202) 482-3692 or (202) 482-5973, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 19, 1993, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on CTL Plate from Germany. See
Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to Final Determinations of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate From Germany, 58 FR 44170 (August 19, 1993).
On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
CTL Plate from Germany. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31,
2005, we received a request for review from Nucor Corporation (the
petitioner), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). On September 28,
2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review covering the period August 1,
2004, through July 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005).
On October 14, 2005, the Department issued its questionnaire to
Dillinger. Dillinger's responses to Sections A through D of the
Department's questionnaire were received on December 5 and 8, 2005. On
January 11, 2006, the petitioner filed comments on Dillinger's
questionnaire response. On January 12, 2006, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to Dillinger with regard to its corporate
structure and organization. On January 18, 2006, Dillinger submitted
its supplemental response. On January 27, 2006, the Department
instructed Dillinger to report its U.S. sales on a constructed export
price (CEP) basis. On March 3, 2006, Dillinger submitted its
supplemental response to the Department's request for CEP sales data.
For further discussion, see Affiliation and Collapsing section below.
The Department issued a supplemental sales questionnaire on January
17, 2006. Dillinger submitted its supplemental response on February 16,
2006. The Department issued an additional supplemental cost
questionnaire on January 24, 2006. Dillinger submitted its response to
the Department's supplemental cost questionnaire on February 24, 2006.
On March 13, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments on Dillinger's
Sections A, B, C, and D supplemental responses. On March 16, and July
20, 2006, the Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires.
Dillinger submitted supplemental responses on April 3 and 14, 2006, and
on July 27, 2006, respectively. Dillinger submitted its sales
reconciliation on May 2 and 9, 2006.
On April 6, 2006, the Department published an extension of time
limits for the preliminary results of the antidumping duty
administrative review extending the time limits to August 31, 2006. See
Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate From Germany: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 17438 (April 6, 2006). From May 15 through 19, 2006, the
Department conducted a verification of Dillinger's cost response. On
June 28, 2006, the Department issued its verification report. On August
15, 2006, the petitioner submitted pre-preliminary comments on the
sales and cost responses. We address the issues raised by the
petitioner in the Normal Value and Cost of Production sections below.
Period of Review
The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2004, through July 31,
2005.
Scope of the Order
This order covers hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates
(i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box
pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250
millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in
coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither
clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished,
or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain
hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or
other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and
of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice
the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030,
7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000,
7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,
7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,
7212.50.0000. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of non-
rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been
``worked after rolling'') for example, products which have been beveled
or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order is grade X-70 plate.
Also excluded is certain carbon cut-to-length steel plate with a
maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355
EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y
15 0001 types 1 and 2.
These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
Affiliation and Collapsing
Dillinger argues that it is not affiliated with its U.S.
distributor, AIA, a wholly-owned Arcelor S.A. entity, and reported its
U.S. sales on an export price (EP) basis. Dillinger claims that it does
not have any direct business relationships with Arcelor S.A. Rather,
all of Dillinger's business relationships with Arcelor S.A. are
indirect through Arcelor subsidiaries. See Dillinger's January 18,
2006, supplemental questionnaire response at page 4. Dillinger states
that it is not under common control with another person (AIA) by a
third person (Arcelor, S.A.). Therefore, Dillinger argues that it is
not affiliated with AIA. Furthermore, Dillinger claims that the
Department previously found Dillinger and Arcelor not to be affiliated
companies.
Section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
describes affiliated persons, in part, as ``two or more persons
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with, any person.'' See Section 771(33)(F) of the Act.
Moreover, the statute provides that ``a person shall be considered to
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.''
See Section 771(33) of the Act.
In the investigation and first review, the Department treated
Dillinger's U.S. sales as EP sales (formerly purchase price sales).\1\
In the second review, we
[[Page 53384]]
reversed our decision and considered the U.S. sale as a CEP sale. In
that review, we determined that Francosteel (now AIA) acted as more
than a processor of sales documents and a communications link between
the unrelated U.S. customers and Dillinger. We also found that
Francosteel played a major role in negotiating and bringing about the
sale, from the bidding stage through the final contract.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate From Germany, 58 FR 37136 (July 9, 1993); Certain Cut-To-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 13834 (March 28, 1996).
\2\ Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 18390,
18391 (April 15, 1997) (Second Review of CTL Plate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review reflects a manufacturer and reseller who are indirectly
under the common control of another company, and therefore, affiliated
under section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Based on record evidence, we
preliminary find that Dillinger and AIA are under the common control of
Arcelor, S.A., pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act for several
reasons.
First, Arcelor, S.A. owns a majority share of Dillinger Hutte
Saarstahl AG (DHS) Holding. DHS, in turn, owns 95.28 percent of
Dillinger.\3\ Furthermore, Arcelor, S.A. controls 99.98 percent of
capital in Dillinger's U.S. affiliate, AIA.\4\ This scenario is similar
to Canned Pineapple Fruit, where the Department found that TPC, MIC and
Princes were under the common control of MC and, therefore, affiliated,
under section 771(33)(F) of the Act.\5\ This scenario is also similar
to Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware, where Cinsa and ENASA were considered
to be under common control of their parent company.\6\ Furthermore,
although Arcelor, S.A.'s indirect ownership in Dillinger is slightly
greater than 50 percent, the legislative history makes clear that one
of the Department's goals is to broaden its ability to analyze
commercial relationships for the purposes of dumping analysis, which
are consistent with economic realities. See Statement of Administrative
Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No.
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, Vol. 1, (1994) at 838. Moreover, the
legislative history also makes clear that the statute does not require
majority ownership for a finding of control, but rather encompasses
both legal and operational control. See SAA at 838.\7\ In this review,
the economic reality demonstrates a common control of Dillinger and
AIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Dillinger's January 18, 2006, supplemental response at 1.
\4\ Dillinger's April 14, 2006, supplemental response at 201 of
Appendix SA-3.
\5\ Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Final
Determination to Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit from
Thailand, 67 FR 76718 (December 13, 2002) (Canned Pineapple Fruit).
\6\ Certain Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496,
42497 (August 7, 1997) (Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware).
\7\ Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, 64
FR 116, 119 (January 4, 1999) (unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 30750, 30760 (June 8,
1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Dillinger has explained that it used only one commissioned
selling agent in the United States for its U.S. sales and it provided a
copy of the commissions agreement.\8\ Consistent with our determination
in the Second Review of CTL Plate, we continue to determine that AIA
plays a major role in negotiating and bringing about the sale, from the
bidding stage through the final contract, and acts as more than a
processor of sales documents and a communications link between the
unrelated U.S. customer and Dillinger. We also preliminarily find that
Dillinger's relationship to AIA is similar to the circumstances in
Furfuryl Alcohol, where there was an exclusive sales agreement and the
agent participated in the price and sales negotiations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Dillinger's December 8, 2006, response at C-28.
\9\ Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Furfuryl Alcohol from the Republic of South Africa, 62 FR
61084, 61088 (November 14, 1997) (Furfuryl Alcohol).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Dillinger's normal business practice demonstrates that it
is affiliated with AIA. As discussed above, AIA was the only
commissioned selling agent during the POR. In addition, both Dillinger
and AIA's financial statements are consolidated into Arcelor, S.A.'s
financial statements. One of the criteria Arcelor, S.A. uses to
determine consolidation is that the group holds significant influence
if the group holds 20 percent or more of the voting rights.\10\ In
other words, the controlling entity within a consolidated group has the
ultimate power to determine the capital structure and financial costs
of each member in the group. As stated in Industrial Nitrocellulose, we
cannot ignore the fact that the company is operating as a larger entity
with the support (direct or indirect) to which it is entitled from the
group.\11\ Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, we are treating
AIA as an affiliate of Dillinger and treating the U.S. sales as CEP
sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Note 2, item 3, to Arcelor, S.A. 2005 Consolidated
Financial Statements in Appendix SA-8 of AIA's April 14, 2006,
supplemental response.
\11\ Industrial Nitrocellulose From the United Kingdom; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 77747,
77749 (December 19, 2002) (Industrial Nitrocellulose) (citing Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural
Steel Beams from South Africa, 67 FR 35485, 35487 (May 20, 2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
CTL Plate produced by Dillinger, covered by the scope of the order, and
sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for
the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to CTL Plate
sold in the United States.
Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we
compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on
the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical
characteristics reported by the respondent.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of CTL Plate by Dillinger to the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared the CEP to the NV, as
described in the Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of
this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we
calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to
individual U.S. transactions.
Constructed Export Price
We calculated the price of U.S. sales based on CEP, in accordance
with section 772(b) of the Act. The Act defines the term ``constructed
export price'' as ``the price at which the subject merchandise is first
sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the
date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter
of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter,
as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d) of this section.'' In
contrast, section 772(a) of the Act defines ``export price'' as ``the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
[[Page 53385]]
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c) of
this section.''
In determining whether to classify U.S. sales as either EP or CEP
sales, the Department must examine the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the U.S. sales process, and assess whether the reviewed
sales were made ``in the United States'' for purposes of section 772(b)
of the Act. As preliminarily determined by the Department in the
Affiliation and Collapsing section above, AIA is affiliated with
Dillinger, the producer and exporter, and sells to the purchaser in the
United States. Furthermore, in the instant case, the record establishes
that Dillinger's affiliate in the United States (1) took title to the
subject merchandise and (2) invoiced and received payment from the
unaffiliated U.S. customers for its sales of the subject merchandise to
those U.S. customers. Thus, the Department has determined that these
U.S. sales should be classified as CEP transactions.
Where appropriate, pursuant to sections 772(c)(2) and (d) of the
Act, we made deductions from the starting price for early payment
discounts, inland freight plant to port, inland insurance, brokerage
and handling in home market, brokerage and handling in the United
States, international freight, marine insurance, other U.S.
transportation expenses, U.S. customs duties, credit expenses,
inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States, and other
indirect selling expenses in the country of manufacture and the United
States associated with economic activity in the United States. Pursuant
to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a fair
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the
home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary
course of trade.
Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, inland freight, inland
insurance, and packing. Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where
appropriate, for credit expenses and billing adjustments. We did not
allow adjustments for commissions because Dillinger did not provide
documentation to support its claim that the commissions were at arm's
length. See Section 773(a)(6)(B) and (C) of the Act the and Preliminary
Sales Calculation Memorandum to the File, dated August 31, 2006, which
is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main
Department building.
We also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to NV for
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with the Department's
practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sales observation
resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent
of the cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product, we based NV on
constructed value. See Policy Bulletin, Number 92.2, Difmer 20 Percent
Rule, July 29, 1992.
For purposes of calculating the NV, section 771(16) of the Act
defines ``foreign like product'' as merchandise which is either (1)
identical or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States.
When there are no identical products sold in the home market, the
products which are most similar to the product sold in the U.S. are
identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are
identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an
adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the
actual physical differences between the products sold in the United
States and the home market. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.411.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT) as the CEP sales. Because all sales in the comparison market were
compared at the same LOT as the CEP sales, we did not make a LOT
adjustment or CEP offset under section 773(a)(7).
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see the
August 31, 2006, Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum, which is on
file CRU.
Cost of Production
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding, the
Department found that Dillinger made sales in the home market at prices
below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales
from the calculation of NV. See Second Review of CTL Plate. Therefore,
the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect that Dillinger made sales of CTL Plate in Germany at prices
below the cost of production (COP) in this administrative review. See
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department
initiated a COP inquiry for Dillinger.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and
administrative (G&A) expenses, selling expenses, packing expenses, and
interest expenses.
B. Cost Methodology
We relied on the COP data submitted by Dillinger in its cost
questionnaire response except in the specific instances where, based on
our review of the submissions and our verification findings, we believe
that an adjustment is required, as discussed below. See also Memorandum
to Neal Halper, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - AG der Dillinger
Huttenwerke'' dated August 31, 2006, which is on file in the CRU.
(1) We increased Dillinger's cost of manufacturing under section
773(f)(2) of the Act (i.e., transactions disregarded rule) for scrap
purchased from an affiliated party at less than market value.
(2) We increased Dillinger's cost of manufacturing under section
773(f)(3) of the Act (i.e., major input rule) for coke purchased from a
affiliated parties at less than market value.
(3) We revised Dillinger's G&A expense rate calculation to include
the year-end inventory adjustments recorded in the company's audited
financial statements.
(4) We revised Dillinger's non-consolidated financial expense rate
to reflect a rate calculated on the company's highest level of
consolidated financial statements.
C. Test of Home-Market Prices
In determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at
prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B)
of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market
sales of the foreign like product and we examined
[[Page 53386]]
whether (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in
substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made at prices which
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-market
prices, less any applicable movement charges, indirect selling
expenses, commissions, and rebates.
D. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) 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
during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such
sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended
period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act. Because we compared prices to the POR-average COP, 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, we disregarded the
below-cost sales.
Arm's-Length Sales
Dillinger reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated
resellers/service centers.\12\ The Department calculates NV based on a
sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to
the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made
to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at
arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We note that sales from Dillinger to its affiliated
resellers/service centers constitute less than 5 percent of
Dillinger's total sales in the foreign market and we did not require
it to report the sales from its affiliated resellers/service centers
to the unaffiliated customers. See 19 CFR 351.403(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared
the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers
net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and
packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the
prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and
102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for
merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated
party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices and
included such sales in the calculation of NV. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67
FR 69186 (November 15, 2002); and 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where
all sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test,
all sales to that affiliated party were excluded from the NV
calculation. In this instant case, none of the sales to the affiliated
resellers/service centers passed the arm's-length test.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer/Manufacturer Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dillinger........................................... 0.16% (i.e., de
minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs must be submitted within
30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal
briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted
no later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any
such comments on a diskette. An interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days
after the due date of the rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue
the final results of this administrative review, which will include the
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a
hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon
issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping
duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the
entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject
merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to
each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the
sales to that importer. In instances where entered value was not
reported, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales
examined and divided this amount by the total quantity of the sales
examined. 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
estimated entered values. The Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication
of the final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that
company's sales during the review period.
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
CTL Plate from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Dillinger will
be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if
the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash
deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results
in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior
[[Page 53387]]
review, or the original less than fair value investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in these or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 36.00 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established
in the underlying investigation.\13\ These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to Final
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products,
and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany, 58 FR
44170 (August 19, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: August 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-15008 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S