[Federal Register: November 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 62820-62824]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07no07-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-830]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod
(``wire rod'') from Mexico for the period of review (``POR'') October
1, 2005, through September 30, 2006.
We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Hylsa Puebla, S.A.
de C.V. (``Hylsa'') made sales at less than normal value (``NV''). 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 assess antidumping duties equal to the
difference between the export price (``EP'') and NV.
DATES: Effective Dates: November 7, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff or Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, Room 1870, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1009 or (202) 482-8362, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico; see Notice
of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and
Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002). On October 2, 2006, the
Department published in the Federal Register the notice of Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 57920 (October 2,
2006).
On October 31, 2006, we received a request for review from
petitioners,\1\ with respect to Hylsa and Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas
Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (``Sicartsa''). This review was requested in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners are Mittal Steel USA Inc., Gerdau USA Inc.,
Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries,
Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (collectively ``the
petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 27, 2006, we published the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 1,
2005, through September 30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006).
On December 28, 2006, petitioners withdrew their request for a
review of Sicartsa pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On May 25, 2007,
we published in the Federal Register the notice of rescission for
Sicartsa; see Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico:
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
72 FR 29300 (May 25, 2007).
On February 5, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section A response to the
Department's December 8, 2006, initial questionnaire. On February 12,
2007, Hylsa submitted its sections B-C response to the Department's
initial questionnaire. On June 11, 2007, Hylsa submitted its
supplemental questionnaire response to the
[[Page 62821]]
Department's May 4, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On September
6, 2007, Hylsa submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response
to the Department's August 23, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On
September 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its third supplemental
questionnaire response to the Department's September 10, 2007,
questionnaire for sections A-C.
On February 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section D response to the
Department's December 7, 2007, questionnaire. On July 16, 2007, Hylsa
submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's
June 18, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On September 13, 2007,
Hylsa submitted its second questionnaire response to the Department's
August 23, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On October 10, 2007,
Hylsa submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the
Department's October 3, 2007, questionnaire for section D.
On March 30, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments with respect
to Hylsa. On May 17, 2007, the Department published a notice extending
the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fourth
administrative review from July 3, 2007, to October 31, 2007. See
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 27801 (May 17, 2007).
Scope of Review
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid
cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted
physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (``HTSUS'') definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b)
tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e)
concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free
machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or
more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05
percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than
0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more
than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarborization of no
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii)
having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no
deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA
04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a
length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter
of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing
by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3)
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4)
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent,
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial
decarborization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv)
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate,
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered
to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis--that
is, the direction of rolling--of the rod) over thickness (measured on
the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod)
is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for
purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the
measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section
measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This
measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade
1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead
quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use
certification for the importation of such products may be required.
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this
scope.
The products under review are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590,
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090,
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051,
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS
numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/toc.html
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), all products produced by the respondents covered
by the description
[[Page 62822]]
in the ``Scope of Review'' section, above, and sold in Mexico during
the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have
relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to
comparison-market sales of the foreign like product or constructed
value (``CV''): grade range, carbon content range, surface quality,
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade 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 above.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of wire rod from Mexico were made in the
United States at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as
described in the ``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.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was
sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly
to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to
importation and when constructed export price was not otherwise
warranted based on the facts on the record. We based EP on the packed
cost-insurance-freight (``CIF''), ex-factory, free-on-board (``FOB''),
or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for
exportation to, the United States.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland
freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign
brokerage, handling and loading charges, U.S. brokerage, and U.S.
inland freight expenses (freight from port to the customer) and
insurance. We also adjusted EP for billing adjustments.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2) and in keeping with our
practice, we added interest, freight, and other revenue (i.e., Mexican
and U.S. brokerage and handling) where applicable. See, e.g., Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 69 FR 19400, 19406 (April 13, 2004); unchanged in
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 69 FR 53677 (September
2, 2004).
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared
Hylsa's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Hylsa had an
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.
B. Arm's-Length Test
Hylsa reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated end-
users and affiliated resellers. The Department calculates the 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). 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 consider the
sales to be at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c); see also
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course
of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). Conversely, where
sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all
sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV
calculation. Id. Some of Hylsa's sales did not pass the arm's-length
test and were excluded from the NV calculation.
C. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis
1. Calculation of COP
Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of
Hylsa, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the
respondents' comparison market sales were made below the COP. We
calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing, in
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We adjusted Hylsa's
reported general and administrative expenses to account for certain
costs. The Department normally includes these costs in the calculation
of COP. See October 31, 2007, memorandum to the file, ``Cost of
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results--Hylsa Puebla S.A. de C.V.'' from Gina K. Lee,
Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had
been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In
accordance with the statute and the Department's practice, we
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also
subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. We also adjusted the
gross unit price for billing adjustments and interest revenue. See
section 773(b) of the Act; see also 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 25063, 25066 (May 5, 2004); unchanged in Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: Final Results, Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination
Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731 (November 8, 2004).
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of
[[Page 62823]]
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.'' See section
773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period
of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because
they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we
compared prices to POR-average costs, 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 Hylsa, for purposes of this
administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given
product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV,
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the October 31,
2007, memorandum to the file, ``Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for
Hylsa S.A. de C.V.'' (``Calculation Memorandum for Hylsa'') from
Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst, Office of AD/CVD Operations III,
available in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') Import Administration,
Washington, DC, HCHB Building, Room B for our calculation methodology
and results.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to
comparison market customers. We calculated the starting price taking
into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment
discounts. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made
deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for handling,
loading, inland freight, and inland insurance. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.402, we added interest revenue, where applicable. In accordance
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing
costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In
addition, we made circumstance of sale (``COS'') adjustments for direct
expenses, including imputed credit expenses, and warranty expenses in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average
costs.
Sales of wire rod purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated
producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same
manner described above in the ``Export Price'' section of this notice.
E. 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
as the EP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at
the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a
different LOT.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market
sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the
comparison-market sales were at a different LOT and the differences
affect 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 will
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In its questionnaire response, Hylsa did not claim a LOT
adjustment. See Hylsa's Section A questionnaire response dated February
12, 2007, at page 29. Moreover, based on our analysis of the facts of
this administrative review, we preliminarily determine that there is no
substantial difference in the selling functions between the sales on
which NV is based and the export transactions. All of Hylsa's U.S.
sales are reported as EP sales. Thus, we have matched EP sales to sales
in the home market without regard to level of trade and made no level
of trade adjustment.
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of
Hylsa's LOT findings for these preliminary results, see page 3 of the
October 31, 2007, calculation memorandum for Hylsa.
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 Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period
October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hylsa................................................... 17.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). 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,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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 diskette. 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, within
120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. After 41 days of
publication of the final results of this administrative review, if any
importer-specific ad valorem 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. The total customs value is based on the
entered value reported for each importer for all U.S. entries of
subject merchandise purchased during the POR for consumption in the
United States.
[[Page 62824]]
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 the companies included in these preliminary results 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 or companies involved in the
transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for Hylsa in this administrative
review, we divided the total dumping margins by the total net value for
this 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
wire rod from Mexico 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 rates for the companies
listed above will be the rates 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 this review, a prior review,
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 final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 20.11 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From
Mexico, 67 FR 55800 (August 30, 2002).
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 administrative review is issued and published 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.
[FR Doc. E7-21870 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P