Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5493

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Any hearing, if requested, 

will be held 37 days after the 

publication of this notice, or the first 

workday thereafter. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested 

parties may submit case briefs within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, may be filed not later than 35 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument with an 

electronic version included. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of issues raised 

in any such written briefs or hearing, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also 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. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2527 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–428–830] 

Stainless Steel Bar From Germany: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

stainless steel bar from Germany. The 

period of review is August 2, 2001, 

through February 28, 2003. This review 

covers imports of stainless steel bar 

from one producer/exporter. 

We have preliminarily found that 

sales of subject merchandise have not 

been made at less than normal value. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to liquidate entries of stainless steel bar 

from BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH, BGH 

Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH 

Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, and BGH 

Edelstahl Siegen GmbH without regard 

to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results not later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Smith, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 7, 2002, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published an antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar from Germany. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless 

Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 10382 

(March 7, 2002). On October 10, 2003, 

the Department published an amended 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar from Germany. See Notice of 

Amended Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Stainless Steel Bar from France, 

Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United 

Kingdom, 68 FR 58660 (October 10, 

2003). 

On March 3, 2003, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 9974 

(March 3, 2003). On March 27, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 

Department received a timely request 

for review from BGH Edelstahl Freital 

GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf 

GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, 

and BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH 

(collectively ‘‘BGH’’), four affiliated 

German producers of the subject 

merchandise. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review on April 21, 2003. 

See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 68 FR 19498 (April 21, 2003). 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is August 

2, 2001 through February 28, 2003. 

An antidumping duty questionnaire 

was sent to BGH on May 7, 2003. We 

received a timely response from BGH on 

June 13, 2003. We issued supplemental 

questionnaires to BGH on August 22, 

September 3, September 24, and 

September 29, 2003. We received 

responses from BGH on September 22, 

September 26, October 3, and October 8, 

2003. 

On June 2, 2003, BGH requested that 

it be relieved from the requirement to 

report affiliated party resales because 

sales of the foreign like product to 

affiliated parties during the POR 

constituted less than five percent of 

total sales of the foreign like product. 

On June 11, 2003, we granted BGH’s 

request in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.403(d). See Memorandum to Jeffrey 

May, ‘‘Reporting of BGH’s Home Market 

Sales by an Affiliated Party,’’ dated June 

11, 2003 which is in the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, located in Room 

B–099 of the main Department building 

(‘‘CRU’’). 

On October 28, 2003, in accordance 

with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we 

published a notice extending the time 

limit for the completion of the 

preliminary results in this case by 60 

days (i.e., until no later than January 30, 

2004). See Stainless Steel Bar from 

Germany and Italy: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit for 2001–2003 

Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 61398 

(October 28, 2003). 

On October 28 through November 6, 

and December 10–11, 2003, we 

conducted verifications of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

BGH. We issued a verification report on 

January 20, 2004. See ‘‘Verification’’

section of this notice for further 

discussion.

Scope of the Order 

For the purposes of this order, the 

term ‘‘stainless steel bar’’ includes 

articles of stainless steel in straight 

lengths that have been either hot-rolled, 

forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled 

or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, 

having a uniform solid cross section 

along their whole length in the shape of 

circles, segments of circles, ovals, 

rectangles (including squares), triangles, 

hexagons, octagons, or other convex 

polygons. Stainless steel bar includes 

cold-finished stainless steel bars that are 

turned or ground in straight lengths, 

5494 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

whether produced from hot-rolled bar or 

from straightened and cut rod or wire, 

and reinforcing bars that have 

indentations, ribs, grooves, or other 

deformations produced during the 

rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled 

products (i.e., cut length rolled products 

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness 

have a width measuring at least 10 times 

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness having a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness), products that have been cut 

from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, 

wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 

of any uniform solid cross section along 

their whole length, which do not 

conform to the definition of flat-rolled 

products), and angles, shapes and 

sections. 

The stainless steel bar subject to this 

review is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 

7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 

7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 

7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 

7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, on October 28 through November 6, 

and December 10–11, 2003, we verified 

information provided by BGH using 

standard verification procedures, 

including on-site inspection of the 

manufacturers’ facilities; examination of 

relevant sales, cost and financial 

records; and selection of original 

documentation containing relevant 

information. The Department reported 

its verification findings on January 20, 

2004. See Memorandum to John 

Brinkmann, ‘‘Verification of the 

Responses of BGH Group, Inc. in the 

First (1st) Antidumping Administrative 

Review of Stainless Steel Bar from 

Germany,’’ dated January 20, 2004, 

which is in the CRU. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

stainless steel bar by BGH to the United 

States were made at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’), we compared the export 

price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice, below. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Act, we compared the EPs of individual 

U.S. transactions to the weightedaverage NV of the foreign like product, 

where there were sales made in the 

ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this 

notice. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by BGH covered by the 

description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’

section, above, to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order 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 BGH’s 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of its 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

(For further details, see the ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ section of this notice.) 

We compared U.S. sales to sales made 

in the comparison market within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

to the POR until two months after the 

POR. Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

sales of the most similar foreign like 

product made in the ordinary course of 

trade. In making product comparisons, 

consistent with the Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from 

Germany, 67 FR 3159 (January 23, 2002) 

and Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Stainless Steel Bar from 

Germany, 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002) 

(collectively ‘‘LTFV Final’’), we 

matched foreign like products based on 

the physical characteristics reported by 

BGH in the following order: general type 

of finish; grade; remelting process; type 

of final finishing operation; shape; and 

size. 

Export Price 

We calculated EP in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act because the 

merchandise was sold to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation by the 

exporter or producer outside the United 

States and because constructed export 

price methodology was not otherwise 

warranted. We based EP on the packed 

ex-works or delivered price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We identified the correct starting 

price by accounting for billing 

adjustments and early payment 

discounts. We also made deductions 

from the starting price for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 

deductions included foreign inland 

freight, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees), and U.S. 

inland freight. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV (i.e., whether the 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

BGH’s volume of home market sales of 

the foreign like product to the volume 

of its U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.404(b)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations. Because BGH’s aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product was greater than 

five percent of its aggregate volume of 

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, 

we determined that the home market 

was viable. 

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

The Department’s practice with 

respect to the use of home market sales 

to affiliated parties for NV is to 

determine whether such sales are at 

arm’s-length prices. BGH made sales in 

the home market to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers. To test whether 

the sales to affiliates were made at 

arm’s-length prices, we compared the 

starting prices of sales to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, discounts, and packing. 

Where the price to the affiliated party 

was, on average, within a range of 98 to 

102 percent of the price of the same or 

comparable merchandise to the 

unaffiliated parties, we determined that 

the sales made to the affiliated party 

were at arm’s length. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (November 15, 2002). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we only included in our 

margin analysis those sales to affiliated 

parties that were made at arm’s length. 

C. Cost of Production 

Because we disregarded sales below 

the cost of production (‘‘COP’’) in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5495

1The marketing process in the United States and 

comparison markets begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. 

The chain of distribution between the two may have 

many or few links, and the respondents’ sales occur 

somewhere along this chain.

2Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) 

of trade in a particular market. For purposes of 

these preliminary results, we have organized the 

common selling functions into four major 

categories: sales process and marketing support, 

freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, 

and quality assurance/warranty services.

3Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, 

where possible.

investigation (see LTFV Final), we had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of the foreign like product 

under consideration for the 

determination of NV in this review may 

have been made at prices below the 

COP, as provided by section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 

we requested that BGH respond to 

section D, the cost of production/

constructed value section of the 

questionnaire. 

We conducted the COP analysis 

described below. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of BGH’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for general and 

administrative expenses (‘‘G&A’’), 

interest expenses, and home market 

packing costs. We relied on the COP 

information provided by BGH, except in 

the following instances. 

BGH reported its G&A and interest 

expenses on a weighted average basis 

for the years 2001 and 2002. We 

recalculated BGH’s G&A and interest 

expense ratios using data only from 

BGH’s fiscal year 2002. See Canned 

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Notice 

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Rescission of 

Administrative Review in Part, and 

Final Determination to Not Revoke 

Order in Part, 68 FR 65247 (November 

19, 2003) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 12. 

Consistent with the LTFV Final, we also 

recalculated BGH’s G&A ratio by 

excluding its parent companies’ cost of 

goods sold from the calculation of the 

G&A expense ratio. 

We also recalculated BGH’s interest 

expense ratio by including all of BGH’s 

consolidated exchange gains and losses 

on foreign currency in the calculation of 

the interest expense ratio. See Stainless 

Steel Bar from India; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 47543 (August 11, 2003) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 19. 

For further explanation about these 

adjustments see Memorandum from 

Case Analyst to File, ‘‘Preliminary 

Results Calculation Memorandum for 

BGH Group, Inc.,’’ dated January 30, 

2004, located in the Department’s CRU. 

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

of the foreign like product during the 

POR, as required under section 773(b) of 

the Act, in order to determine whether 

the sale prices were below the COP. The 

prices were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges, billing adjustments, 

commissions, discounts, rebates, 

interest revenue and indirect selling 

expenses. In determining whether to 

disregard home market sales made at 

prices below the COP, we examined, in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act, whether such sales were made 

(1) within an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities, and (2) at prices 

which did not permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product are 

made at prices below the COP, we do 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product because we determine that 

in such instances the below-cost sales 

were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product are at prices less than the COP, 

we determine that in such instances the 

below cost sales represent ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ within an extended period 

of time in accordance with section 

773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, 

we also determine whether such sales 

are made at prices which would not 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.

We found that, for certain specific 

products, more than 20 percent of the 

comparison market sales were at prices 

less than the COP and, thus, the belowcost sales were made within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities. In addition, these sales were 

made at prices that did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We therefore excluded 

these sales and used the remaining sales 

as the basis for determining NV, in 

accordance with section 772(b)(1). 

D. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) 

as the EP. Sales are made at different 

LOTs if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial 

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 

19, 1997). In order to determine whether 

the comparison sales were at different 

stages in the marketing process than the 

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain 

of distribution’’),1 including selling 

functions,2 class of customer (‘‘customer 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 

EP and comparison market sales (i.e.,

NV based on either home market or 

third country prices 3), we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments.

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the EP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP 

sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practical, we make a LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. 

We examined the chain of 

distribution and the selling activities 

associated with sales reported by BGH 

to its four channels of distribution in the 

home market, and where appropriate, to 

distinct customer categories within 

these channels. We found that 

distribution channels 1, 2, and 3, were 

similar with respect to sales process, 

freight services, and warranty service 

and, therefore, constituted a distinct 

level of trade (LOTH 1). We found that 

distribution channel 4 constituted a 

distinct level of trade (LOTH 2) because 

sales in this channel were made from 

warehouse inventory and encompassed 

services similar to those of a ‘‘service 

center.’’ We also found that LOTH 2 

differed significantly from LOTH 1 with 

respect to sales process. Based upon our 

overall analysis in the home market, we 

found that LOTH 1 and LOTH 2 

constituted two different levels of trade. 

BGH reported EP sales through two 

channels of distribution, produce-toorder sales to distributors (channel 1) 

5496 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

and warehouse inventory sales to 

distributors (channel 3). We examined 

the chain of distribution and the selling 

activities associated with sales through 

these channels and found them to be 

similar with respect to sales process, 

freight services, and warranty service. 

Therefore, we determine that the two EP 

channels of distribution constitute a 

single level of trade (LOTU 1). 

The EP level of trade differed 

considerably from LOTH 2 with respect 

to sales process and warehousing/

inventory maintenance. However, the 

EP level of trade was similar to LOTH 

1 with respect to sales process, freight 

services, warehouse/inventory 

maintenance and warranty service. 

Consequently, we matched the EP sales 

to sales at the same level of trade in the 

home market (LOTH 1). Where no 

matches at the same level of trade were 

possible, we matched to sales in LOTH 

2 and we made a level of trade 

adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on the exworks or delivered price to unaffiliated 

customers or prices to affiliated 

customer that we determined to be at 

arm’s length. We identified the correct 

starting price by accounting for billing 

adjustments, early payment discounts, 

other discounts, rebates, and interest 

revenue. In accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made 

deductions for inland freight and inland 

insurance. We also made adjustments, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), 

for indirect selling expenses incurred in 

the home market or on U.S. sales where 

commissions were granted on sales in 

one market but not in the other (the 

commission offset). 

Furthermore, we made adjustments 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In 

addition, where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by 

deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market sales 

(credit expenses), and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses (credit expenses and 

commissions). Where payment dates 

were unreported we recalculated the 

credit expenses using the date of the 

preliminary determination in place of 

actual date of payment. We deducted 

home market packing costs and added 

U.S. packing costs in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

Finally, where appropriate, we made 

an adjustment for differences in LOT 

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.412(b)–(e). 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily find that the 

following dumping margin exists for the 

period August 2, 2001, through 

February 28, 2003.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

BGH .................................................. 0.43

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, the Department 

will determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), 

the Department calculates an 

assessment rate for each importer of the 

subject merchandise. Upon issuance of 

the final results of this administrative 

review, if any importer (or customer)-

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. To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates covering the period 

were de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), we calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem rates 

by aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to that 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the entered value of the sales 

to that importer (or customer). Where an 

importer (customer)-specific ad valorem

rate is greater than de minimis and the 

entered value is available, we apply the 

assessment rate to the entered value of 

the importer’s/customer’s entries during 

the POR. Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, and the entered 

value is not available, we calculated a 

per unit assessment rate by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for U.S. 

sales to that importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). 

The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

Cash Deposit Rates 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon completion of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of stainless 

steel bar from Germany entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rates for the reviewed company 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of this administrative review 

(except no cash deposit will be required 

if its weighted-average margin is de 

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) 

for merchandise exported by 

manufacturers or exporters not covered 

in this review but covered in the LTFV 

Final investigation, the cash deposit 

will continue to be the most recent rate 

published in the final determination for 

which the manufacturer or exporter 

received an individual rate; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, or the original 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) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this review, the cash 

deposit rate will be 16.96 percent, the 

‘‘all others’’ rates established in the 

LTFV Final. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. A hearing, if requested, will 

be 37 days after the publication of this 

notice, or the first business day 

thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs. Interested 

parties may submit case briefs within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, may be filed not later than 35 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument with an 

electronic version included. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or hearing, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5497

1Petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, 

AK Steel Corporation, Butler Armco Independent 

Union, J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., United States 

Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and 

Zanesville Armco Independent Organization.

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 in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2528 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583–831]

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Taiwan: Extension of Time Limits 

for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Extension of time limits for the 

preliminary results of antidumping duty 

administrative review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is extending the 

time limits for the preliminary results of 

the antidumping duty administrative 

review of stainless steel sheet and strip 

(‘‘SSSS’’) from Taiwan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD 

Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3207.

BACKGROUND:

On July 2, 2003, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on SSSS from 

Taiwan. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 68 

FR 39511 (July 2, 2003). On July 24, 

2003, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co. 

Ltd.(‘‘Chia Far’’), a Taiwanese producer 

of subject merchandise, requested that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of its sales of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review (‘‘POR’’). On July 30, 2003, 

petitioners1 requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of Chia Far, Yieh United Steel 

Corporation (‘‘YUSCO’’), Tung Mung 

Development Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tung Mung’’), 

Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ta 

Chen’’), China Steel Corporation, Tang 

Eng Iron Works, PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd., 

Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd., Yieh 

Trading Corp., Goang Jau Shing 

Enterprise Co., Ltd., Yieh Mau Corp., 

Chien Shing Stainless Co., Chain Chon 

Industrial Co., Ltd., and their various 

affiliates. On August 22, 2003, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of a review of SSSS from 

Taiwan covering the period July 1, 2002 

through June 30, 2003. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 50750 

(August 22, 2003). The preliminary 

results of review are currently due on 

April 1, 2004.

EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS FOR 

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 

section 351.213(h)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, state that if it 

is not practicable to complete the review 

within the time specified, the 

administering authority may extend the 

245-day period to issue its preliminary 

results by 120 days. Completion of the 

preliminary results of this review within 

the 245-day period is impracticable for 

the following reasons:

• The review involves a large number of 

transactions and complex 

adjustments;

• The responses from Chia Far and 

YUSCO include sales and cost 

information which require the 

Department to gather and analyze a 

significant amount of information 

pertaining to each company’s sales 

practices, manufacturing costs and 

corporate relationships; and

• The review involves examining 

complex relationships between the 

producers and a large number of 

customers and suppliers.

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and section 

351.213(h)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations, we are extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of review by 60 days from April 

1, 2004 until May 31, 2004. The final 

results continue to be due 120 days after 

the publication of the preliminary 

results. This notice is issued and 

published in accordance with Section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and section 

351.213(h)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations.

Dated: January 30, 2004.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Group III.

[FR Doc. 04–2524 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580–829]

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the 

Republic of Korea: Extension of Time 

Limit for Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karine Gziryan or Crystal Scherr 

Crittenden, AD/CVD Enforcement, 

Office 4, Group II, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–4081 or (202) 482–

0989, respectively.

TIME LIMITS:

Statutory Time Limits

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) to make a preliminary 

determination within 245 days after the 

last day of the anniversary month of an 

order or finding for which a review is 

requested and a final determination 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary determination is 

published. However, if it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within these time periods, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the 245-day time 

limit for the preliminary determination 

to a maximum of 365 days and the time 

limit for the final determination to 180 

days (or 300 days if the Department 

does not extend the time limit for the 

preliminary determination) from the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

determination.

Background

On October 24, 2002, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless