5960 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 

Department building at a time and 

location to be determined.

Issues raised in hearings will be 

limited to those raised in the respective 

case and rebuttal briefs. Parties who 

submit case or rebuttal briefs in these 

proceedings 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 notify all 

parties in each country-specific review 

as to the applicable briefing schedule.

The Department will publish the final 

results of these administrative reviews, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs. 

The Department will issue final results 

of these reviews within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated, whenever possible, an 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rate or value for 

merchandise subject to these reviews.

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review produced by companies 

included in these preliminary results of 

reviews for which the reviewed 

companies did not know their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see 

Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment 

of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 

(May 6, 2003).

Export-Price Sales

With respect to export-price sales, for 

these preliminary results we divided the 

total dumping margins (calculated as 

the difference between normal value 

and export price) for each exporter’s 

importer/customer by the total number 

of units the exporter sold to that 

importer/customer. We will direct CBP 

to assess the resulting per-unit dollar 

amount against each unit of 

merchandise in each of that importer’s/

customer’s entries under the relevant 

order during the review period.

Constructed Export Price Sales

For CEP sales (sampled and nonsampled), we divided the total dumping 

margins for the reviewed sales by the 

total entered value of those reviewed 

sales for each importer. We will direct 

the CBP to assess the resulting 

percentage margin against the entered 

customs values for the subject 

merchandise on each of that importer’s 

entries under the relevant order during 

the review period. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b).

Cash-Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash-deposit rate for 

each respondent (i.e., each exporter 

and/or manufacturer included in these 

reviews), we divided the total dumping 

margins for each company by the total 

net value for that company’s sales of 

merchandise during the review period. 

In order to derive a single weightedaverage margin for each respondent, we 

weight-averaged the export-price and 

CEP deposit rates (using the export price 

and CEP, respectively, as the weighting 

factors). To accomplish this when we 

sampled CEP sales, we first calculated 

the total dumping margins for all CEP 

sales during the review period by 

multiplying the sample CEP margins by 

the ratio of total days in the review 

period to days in the sample weeks. We 

then calculated a total net value for all 

CEP sales during the review period by 

multiplying the sample CEP total net 

value by the same ratio. Finally, we 

divided the combined total dumping 

margins for both export-price and CEP 

sales by the combined total value for 

both export-price and CEP sales to 

obtain the deposit rate.

Entries of parts incorporated into 

finished bearings before sales to an 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States will receive the respondent’s 

deposit rate applicable to the order.

Furthermore, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the notice of final results 

of administrative reviews for all 

shipments of antifriction bearings and 

parts thereof entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication, as provided 

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the 

cash-deposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates established 

in the final results of reviews; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the less-than-fair-value 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate for the relevant order made 

effective by the final results of review 

published on July 26, 1993. See 

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 

Thereof From France, et al; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Revocation 

in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, 

58 FR 39729, 39730 (July 26, 1993). For 

ball bearings from Italy, see Antifriction 

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, and Revocation 

in Part of Antidumping Duty Orders, 61 

FR 66472, 66521 (December 17, 1996). 

These rates are the ‘‘All Others’’ rates 

from the relevant less-than-fair-value 

investigations.

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative reviews.

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 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing these 

determinations in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act.

Dated: February 2, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2722 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–831] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results and 

partial rescission of antidumping duty 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 5961

1Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation 

(formerly Armco, Inc.), J&L Speciality Steel, Inc., 

North American Stainless, Butler-Armco 

Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent 

Union, and the United Steelworkers of America, 

AFL–CIO/CLC.

2 Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 

7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 

7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 

7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0018, respectively.

administrative review of stainless steel 

sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: On August 6, 2003, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results and 

partial rescission of its administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 

from Taiwan. See Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 46582 

(August 6, 2003)(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

This review covers imports of subject 

merchandise from Tung Mung 

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

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

Chen’’), Chia Far Industrial Factory Co. 

Ltd. (‘‘Chia Far’’), and Yieh United Steel 

Company (‘‘YUSCO’’). The period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) is July 1, 2001 through 

June 30, 2002. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations for 

YUSCO and Chia Far. Therefore, the 

final results differ from the Preliminary 

Results. The final weighted-average 

dumping margins for the reviewed firms 

are listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’ In 

addition, we are rescinding the review 

with respect to Ta Chen.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita (Ta Chen, Tung Mung); 

Peter Mueller (YUSCO); Lilit 

Astvatsatrian (Chia Far); or Bob Bolling, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4243, (202) 482–

5811, (202) 482–6412 or (202) 482–3434, 

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published its notice of 

preliminary results of antidumping 

administrative review of stainless steel 

sheet and strip in coils (‘‘SSSS’’) from 

Taiwan on August 6, 2003. See 

Preliminary Results.

The merchandise covered by this 

order is SSSS as described in the 

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of the 

Federal Register notice. The period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) is July 1, 2001 through 

June 30, 2002. 

We received written comments from 

petitioners on August 8, August 13, 

August 29, September 24, October 2, 

October 17, 2003 concerning YUSCO’s 

supplemental questionnaire responses 

on YUSCO’s affiliation. YUSCO 

submitted supplemental questionnaire 

responses on August 29, 2003 and 

September 22, 2003 at the Department’s 

request. We did not receive comments 

from petitioners or Chia Far concerning 

Chia Far’s responses after the 

preliminary results of review. 

We conducted a verification of the 

sales information provided by YUSCO 

from September 22, 2003 through 

September 30, 2003.

We invited interested parties to 

comment on our Preliminary Results. 

We received written comments on 

November 18, 2003, from petitioners 1

addressing our analysis of YUSCO, 

Tung Mung, Ta Chen, and Chia Far. We 

received rebuttal briefs from Chia Far on 

November 2, 2003 and from YUSCO on 

November 3, 2003 concerning 

petitioners’ comments. On December 9, 

2003, the Department determined that 

YUSCO’s September 22, 2003 response 

was improperly bracketed, and 

requested YUSCO to resubmit its 

response. On December 16, 2003, 

YUSCO re-submitted its September 22, 

2003 response with revised bracketing.

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the sales information 

provided by YUSCO from September 22, 

2003 through September 30, 2003, 

including an examination of relevant 

sales, cost, and financial records, and 

selection of original documentation 

containing relevant information. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

public version of the verification reports 

and are on file in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’) located in room B–099 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

Building, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 

Scope of the Review 

For purposes of this administrative 

review, the products covered are certain 

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. 

Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject sheet and strip is 

a flat-rolled product in coils that is 

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less 

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is 

annealed or otherwise heat treated and 

pickled or otherwise descaled. The 

subject sheet and strip may also be 

further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, 

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) 

provided that it maintains the specific 

dimensions of sheet and strip following 

such processing. 

The merchandise subject to this 

review is classified in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 

7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 

7219.1300.81,2 7219.14.0030, 

7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 

7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 

7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 

7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 

7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 

7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 

7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 

7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 

7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 

7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 

7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 

7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 

7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 

7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 

7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 

7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 

7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 

7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 

7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 

7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 

7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 

7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 

7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 

7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 

7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 

7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 

7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 

7220.90.0080. Although the HTS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under review is 

dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this 

review are the following: (1) Sheet and 

strip that is not annealed or otherwise 

heat treated and pickled or otherwise 

descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut 

to length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled 

stainless steel products of a thickness of 

4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., 

cold-rolled sections, with a prepared 

edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of 

not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor 

blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flatrolled product of stainless steel, not 

further worked than cold-rolled (coldreduced), in coils, of a width of not 

more than 23 mm and a thickness of 

0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 

12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and 

certified at the time of entry to be used 

in the manufacture of razor blades. See

5962 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 

3 ‘‘Arnokrome III’’ is a trademark of the Arnold 

Engineering Company.

4 ‘‘Gilphy 36’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

5 ‘‘Durphynox 17’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

6This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 

descriptive purposes only.

7 ‘‘GIN4 Mo,’’ ‘‘GIN5’’ and ‘‘GIN6’’ are the 

proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.

Chapter 72 of the HTS, ‘‘Additional U.S. 

Note’’ 1(d).

In response to comments by interested 

parties, the Department has determined 

that certain specialty stainless steel 

products are also excluded from the 

scope of this review. These excluded 

products are described below. 

Flapper valve steel is defined as 

stainless steel strip in coils containing, 

by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 

percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 

percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 

and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel 

also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 

0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 

0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 

0.020 percent or less. The product is 

manufactured by means of vacuum arc 

remelting, with inclusion controls for 

sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent 

and for oxide of no more than 0.05 

percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile 

strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, 

yield strength of between 170 and 270 

ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness 

(Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper 

valve steel is most commonly used to 

produce specialty flapper valves in 

compressors. 

Also excluded is a product referred to 

as suspension foil, a specialty steel 

product used in the manufacture of 

suspension assemblies for computer 

disk drives. Suspension foil is described 

as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless 

steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 

microns, with a thickness tolerance of 

plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface 

glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. 

Suspension foil must be supplied in coil 

widths of not more than 407 mm, and 

with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks 

may only be visible on one side, with 

no scratches of measurable depth. The 

material must exhibit residual stresses 

of 2 mm maximum deflection, and 

flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. 

Certain stainless steel foil for 

automotive catalytic converters is also 

excluded from the scope of this review. 

This stainless steel strip in coils is a 

specialty foil with a thickness of 

between 20 and 110 microns used to 

produce a metallic substrate with a 

honeycomb structure for use in 

automotive catalytic converters. The 

steel contains, by weight, carbon of no 

more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no 

more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no 

more than 1.0 percent, chromium of 

between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum 

of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus 

of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of 

no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum 

of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 

percent, and total rare earth elements of 

more than 0.06 percent, with the 

balance iron. 

Permanent magnet iron-chromiumcobalt alloy stainless strip is also 

excluded from the scope of this review. 

This ductile stainless steel strip 

contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent 

chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, 

with the remainder of iron, in widths 

228.6 mm or less, and a thickness 

between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits 

magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 

12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of 

between 50 and 300 oersteds. This 

product is most commonly used in 

electronic sensors and is currently 

available under proprietary trade names 

such as ‘‘Arnokrome III.’’ 3

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel 

is also excluded from the scope of this 

review. This product is defined as a 

non-magnetic stainless steel 

manufactured to American Society of 

Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) 

specification B344 and containing, by 

weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent 

chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is 

most notable for its resistance to high 

temperature corrosion. It has a melting 

point of 1390 degrees Celsius and 

displays a creep rupture limit of 4 

kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 

degrees Celsius. This steel is most 

commonly used in the production of 

heating ribbons for circuit breakers and 

industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 

railway locomotives. The product is 

currently available under proprietary 

trade names such as ‘‘Gilphy 36.’’ 4

Certain martensitic precipitationhardenable stainless steel is also 

excluded from the scope of this review. 

This high-strength, ductile stainless 

steel product is designated under the 

Unified Numbering System (‘‘UNS’’) as 

S45500-grade steel, and contains, by 

weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 

7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 

manganese, silicon and molybdenum 

each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent 

or less, with phosphorus and sulfur 

each comprising, by weight, 0.03 

percent or less. This steel has copper, 

niobium, and titanium added to achieve 

aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as 

high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile 

strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after 

aging, with elongation percentages of 3 

percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 

provided in thicknesses between 0.635 

and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 

mm. This product is most commonly 

used in the manufacture of television 

tubes and is currently available under 

proprietary trade names such as 

‘‘Durphynox 17.’’ 5

Finally, three specialty stainless steels 

typically used in certain industrial 

blades and surgical and medical 

instruments are also excluded from the 

scope of this review. These include 

stainless steel strip in coils used in the 

production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 

carpet knives).6 This steel is similar to 

AISI grade 420 but containing, by 

weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of 

molybdenum. The steel also contains, 

by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 

1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less, and includes between 0.20 and 

0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 

and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 

sold under proprietary names such as 

‘‘GIN4 Mo.’’ The second excluded 

stainless steel strip in coils is similar to 

AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight, 

carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 

percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 

0.50 percent, manganese of between 

0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no 

more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of 

no more than 0.020 percent. This steel 

has a carbide density on average of 100 

carbide particles per 100 square 

microns. An example of this product is 

‘‘GIN5’’ steel. The third specialty steel 

has a chemical composition similar to 

AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 

and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of 

between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but 

lower manganese of between 0.20 and 

0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more 

than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 

0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 

more than 0.020 percent. This product 

is supplied with a hardness of more 

than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer 

processing, and is supplied as, for 

example, ‘‘GIN6’’.7

Rescission of Review 

In the Preliminary Results, we stated 

that Ta Chen reported, and the 

Department confirmed through 

independent U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘Customs’’) data, that it had 

no shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR. See Memorandum from 

Laurel LaCivita to the File, No Shipment 

Inquiry for Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ta Chen’’), dated July 16, 

2003. Since Ta Chen did not report any 

shipments during the POR, we had no 

basis for determining a margin. 

Consequently, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with 

the Department’s practice, we 

preliminarily rescinded our review with 

respect to Ta Chen. Petitioners 

commented on our preliminary 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 5963

rescission, contesting our reliance on Ta 

Chen’s certification and upon Custom’s 

expertise in determining there were no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR by Ta Chen. The same 

arguments raised here by petitioners 

were expressly rejected by the Court of 

Appeals of the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) 

in Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United 

States, 346 F. 3d 1368 (Oct. 15, 2003) 

(‘‘Allegheny II’’), litigation covering the 

first administrative review of stainless 

steel plate in coils from Taiwan 

(‘‘SSPC’’), in which Ta Chen claimed 

and the Customs confirmed, that it had 

no exports of subject merchandise to the 

United States. during the POR. 

Furthermore, the CIT affirmed the 

Department’s rescission in the second 

administrative review of SSPC from 

Taiwan as well, providing a detailed 

analysis as to the reasonableness of the 

Department’s practice. See Allegheny 

Ludlum Corp. v. United States 240 F. 

Supp. 2d. 1374 (CIT 2003), (‘‘Allegheny 

III’’). 

The Department has not received any 

additional information since the 

Preliminary Results that contradicts the 

decision made in the Preliminary 

Results. We are, therefore, rescinding 

the review with respect to Ta Chen. See

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Joseph 

A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Import Administration, Group III, to 

James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated February 

2, 2004 (Comment 1). Since Ta Chen did 

not participate in the original 

investigation, its cash deposit rate will 

remain at 12.12 percent, which is the all 

others rate established in the less than 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation.

Total Adverse Facts Available 

In our Preliminary Results, we 

explained that Tung Mung did not 

participate in this review and therefore, 

we applied an adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) rate of 21.10 percent to all 

sales and entries of Tung Mung’s subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

Petitioners commented on the 

Department’s application of the AFA 

rate it applied to Tung Mung. 

Petitioners argued that the Department 

should apply the 34.95 percent ad 

valorem antidumping rate from the final 

determination in the original 

investigation. However, as stated in the 

Preliminary Results, the 34.95 percent 

rate represents a combined rate applied 

to a channel-specific transaction in the 

investigation of this proceeding based 

on middleman dumping by Ta Chen. 

We stated that we had no record 

evidence in this segment of the 

proceeding that Tung Mung’s exports to 

the United States during the POR 

involved a middleman, and it would be 

inappropriate, therefore, to use this 

middleman-inclusive rate as AFA in 

this case. Furthermore, the CIT, in 

Allegheny III, rejected these same 

arguments made by petitioners in 

litigation covering the second 

administrative review of SSPC from 

Taiwan. Just as the Department 

determined, and the CIT agreed, that a 

non-middleman AFA rate was 

appropriate for a nonresponsive 

respondent in Allegheny III, we have 

determined that the same analysis is 

appropriate for Tung Mung in this case. 

Since the Preliminary Results, the 

Department has not received any 

additional information on the record 

that contradicts our finding in the 

Preliminary Results. See ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Joseph A. 

Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Import Administration, Group III, to 

James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated February 

2, 2004 (Comment 2). As a result, we 

made no changes to Tung Mung’s 

margin of 21.10 percent for the final 

results. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Joseph 

A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Import Administration, Group III, to 

James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated February 

2, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this 

notice. A list of the issues which parties 

have raised and to which we have 

responded, all of which are in the 

Decision Memorandum, is attached to 

this notice as an Appendix. Parties can 

find a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 

of the main Department building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Sales Below Cost 

We disregarded sales below cost for 

both YUSCO and Chia Far during the 

course of this administrative review. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes in the 

margin calculations for YUSCO and 

Chia Far. The changes to the margin 

calculations are listed below: 

YUSCO 

• We disregarded home market sales 

in the HM4 and HM5 databases, and 

only used sales included in the HM1, 

HM2 and HM3 databases in our margin 

analysis. See Comment 4.

• We coded all of YUSCO’s sales to 

a certain reseller in the home market as 

sales to affiliated parties for the 

purposes of conducting an arm’s length 

test. See Comment 5.

• We deleted the returned sales from 

the computer sales listing in the home 

market. See Comment 6.

• We revised the financial expense 

ratio to account for the change in the 

Department’s treatment of foreign 

exchange gains and losses, and to adjust 

for certain offsets to its foreign exchange 

gains and losses. See Comment 10.

• We adjusted YUSCO’s G&A expense 

ratio to exclude foreign exchange gains 

and losses attributable to accounts 

payable. See Comment 10.

• We made changes to the computer 

program as a result of minor corrections 

at verification: 

• We revised cost of manufacturing 

and variable cost of manufacturing in 

the COP, CV and U.S. sales databases to 

account for certain changes to direct 

labor made as a result of auditor’s 

adjustments. 

• We made changes to credit and ICC 

ratios in the U.S. and home markets to 

account for errors in the reported 

interest rate. 

• We revised the commercial invoice 

date for U.S. sales that were reported in 

error. 

Chia Far 

• We recalculated U.S. warranty 

expense to include all of the appropriate 

warranty expense recorded as export 

losses. See Comment 19.

• We increased COP for certain 

expenses recorded in Chia Far’s 

financial statements that are in accord 

with the GAAP in Taiwan but have been 

found to be distortive by the 

Department. See Comment 22.

• We decreased COGS by the total 

value of further processing and packing 

expenses reported during the POR in 

order to reflect all the appropriate costs 

that are included in the cost of 

manufacturing. See Comment 23.

• We revised the financial expense 

ratio to account for the change in the 

Department’s treatment of foreign 

exchange gains and losses. See 

Comment 24.

• Additionally, as we explained in 

Comment 23, we revised the amount of 

5964 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 

COGS used as the denominator in the 

financial expense ratio to exclude 

packing and further processing costs. 

See Comment 24.

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

percentage margin exists for the period 

July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002:

STAINLESS STEEL SHEET AND STRIP IN

COILS FROM TAIWAN

Manufacturer/exporter/reseller Margin 

(percent) 

YUSCO ....................................... 1.96 

Chia Far ...................................... 0.98 

Tung Mung ................................. 21.10 

The Department will determine, and 

Customs shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. In 

accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations, we have 

calculated an exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rate for 

merchandise subject to this review. The 

Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to 

Customs within 15 days of publication 

of these final results of review. We will 

direct Customs to assess the resulting 

assessment rates against the entered 

customs’ values for the subject 

merchandise on each of the importer’s/

customer’s entries during the review 

period. For duty-assessment purposes, 

we have calculated importer-specific 

assessment rates by dividing the 

dumping margins calculated for each 

importer by the total entered value of 

sales for each importer during the 

period of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of 

this notice of final results of 

administrative review for all shipments 

of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 

from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication, as provided 

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

cash deposit rates for YUSCO, Chia Far 

and Tung Mung will be the rates shown 

above; (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 period; (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 period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in these or any previous 

reviews conducted by the Department, 

the cash deposit rate will be the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate, which is 12.12 percent. 

These deposit requirements shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under section 

351.402(f)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties or countervailing 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 the antidumping 

duties or countervailing duties occurred 

and the subsequent assessment of 

double antidumping duties or 

countervailing duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations, which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the 

Act.

Dated: February 2, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix I—Issues In The Decision 

Memorandum 

A. Issues With Respect to Tung Mung and Ta 

Chen 

Comment 1: Rescission of Review for Ta 

Chen 

Comment 2: Adverse Facts Available 

(‘‘AFA’’) for Tung Mung 

B. Issues With Respect to YUSCO 

Comment 3: Affiliation with Yieh Loong 

Enterprise Company Ltd. (‘‘Yieh Loong’’) 

and China Steel Corporation (‘‘CSC’’) 

Comment 4: Classification of Home Market 

Sales 

Comment 5: Affiliated Parties in the Home 

Market 

Comment 6: Returned Sales 

Comment 7: Affiliation and Collapsing with 

a Certain Downstream Further 

Manufacturer 

Comment 8: Freight Expense Reported by 

Affiliated Parties in the Home Market 

Comment 9: Cost Reconciliation 

Comment 10: Exchange Rate Gains and 

Losses for Cost of Production (‘‘COP’’) and 

Constructed Value (‘‘CV’’) 

Comment 11: Total AFA for YUSCO 

C. Issues With Respect to Chia Far 

Comment 12: Chia Far’s Home Market 

Affiliated Parties 

Comment 13: Home Market Date of Sale 

Comment 14: Incompleteness of Home 

Market Database 

Comment 15: Classification of Non-Prime 

Merchandise 

Comment 16: Calculation of Early Payment 

Discounts for Home Market 

Comment 17: Foreign Inland Freight in 

Taiwan for U.S. Sales 

Comment 18: Inventory Carrying Costs 

(‘‘ICC’’) Incurred in Taiwan for U.S. Sales 

Comment 19: Export Losses for U.S. Sales 

Comment 20: Treatment of Shut-Down Costs 

Comment 21: Calculation of Fully Yielded 

Cost 

Comment 22: Treatment of Certain Expenses 

Under the Generally Accounting Principles 

(‘‘GAAP’’) in Taiwan 

Comment 23: Calculation of Per-Unit General 

and Administrative (‘‘G&A’’) Expense Ratio 

Comment 24: Understatement of Financial 

Expenses in the COP/CV Response 

Comment 25: Total AFA for Chia Far

[FR Doc. 04–2720 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-351–833]

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil: Notice of Rescission 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Rescission of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request made 

on October 31, 2003, by Companhia 

Siderurgica Belgo Mineira, Belgo 

Mineira Participacoes Industria e 

Comercio S.A., and BMP Siderurgica 

S.A., Brazilian producers/exporters of 

carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod, 

the Department of Commerce initiated 

an administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod from Brazil, 

covering the period August 30, 2002