Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 39055 

1The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, North American 

Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, United 

Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/CLC, and 

Zanesville Armco Independent Organization. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

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

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–18727 Filed 8–4–09; 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: Preliminary Results and 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) 

from Taiwan with respect to three 

companies. Only one respondent, Chia 

Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia 

Far), is participating in this review; the 

remaining two companies reported that 

they had no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (POR). The POR is July 1, 2007, 

through June 30, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that Chia 

Far made sales below normal value 

(NV). Moreover, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review with respect to 

the companies that submitted noshipment responses. 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of this administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henry Almond, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 2, Import Administration—Room 

1870, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0049. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 27, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SSSSC from 

Taiwan. See Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, 

Taiwan, and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 

(July 27, 1999) (SSSSC Order). On July 

11, 2008, the Department published in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

opportunity to request administrative 

review of this order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 39948 (July 11, 2008). 

On July 31, 2008, the petitioners 1

submitted a timely request for the 

Department to conduct an 

administrative review of the sales of 

SSSSC made during the POR by the 

following 20 companies: Chain Chon 

Industrial Co., Ltd.; Chia Far; Chien 

Shing Stainess Co.; China Steel 

Corporation; Dah Shi Metal Industrial 

Co., Ltd.; Emerdex Group; Emerdex 

Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc.; 

Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc.; KNS 

Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Lih Chan Steel Co., 

Ltd.; Maytun International Corp.; PFP 

Taiwan Co., Ltd.; Shih Yuan Stainess 

Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Ta Chen 

Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen); Tang 

Eng Iron Works; Waterson Corp.; Well 

Harvest Metal Co., Ltd.; Yieh Loong 

Enterprise Co., Ltd. (aka Chung Hung 

Steel Co., Ltd.); Yieh Mau Corp.; and 

Yieh United Steel Corporation 

(YUSCO), pursuant to section 751(a) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1). 

In August 2008, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review covering each of 

these 20 companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 50308, 

50309 (Aug. 26, 2008) (Initiation 

Notice). 

In our initiation notice we indicated 

that we would select mandatory 

respondents for review based upon CBP 

entry data. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 

at 50308. In September 2008, we 

released relevant CBP data to interested 

parties, and we received comments on 

the issue of respondent selection from 

the petitioners. Also in that month we 

received a statement from Ta Chen 

indicating that it had no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. 

Also in September 2008, the 

petitioners withdrew their request for 

administrative review with respect to 

the following 17 companies: Chain 

Chon Industrial Co., Ltd.; Chien Shing 

Stainess Co.; China Steel Corporation; 

Dah Shi Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.; 

Emerdex Group; Emerdex Stainless FlatRolled Products, Inc.; Emerdex Stainless 

Steel, Inc.; KNS Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Lih 

Chan Steel Co., Ltd.; Maytun 

International Corp.; PFP Taiwan Co., 

Ltd.; Shih Yuan Stainess Steel 

Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Tang Eng Iron 

Works; Waterson Corp.; Well Harvest 

Metal Co., Ltd.; Yieh Loong Enterprise 

Co., Ltd. (aka Chung Hung Steel Co., 

Ltd.); and Yieh Mau Corp. 

In October 2008, the Department 

issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to two remaining 

respondents, Chia Far and YUSCO, and 

we issued a letter to Ta Chen requesting 

additional information regarding its noshipment statement. Ta Chen responded 

to our request in the same month by 

providing the requested information. 

Also in October 2008, YUSCO provided 

a statement indicating that it had no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. For 

further discussion, see the ‘‘Partial 

Rescission of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

Subsequent to Ta Chen’s October 

response, the petitioners alleged that Ta 

Chen was engaged in middleman 

dumping of merchandise produced by 

Tung Mung Development Co. (Tung 

Mung), a Taiwanese producer of SSSSC 

which is excluded from the order. See 

Notice of Correction to the Amended 

Final Determination in Accordance 

With Court Decision in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan, 

70 FR 17658 (April 7, 2005). In 

November 2008, Ta Chen denied the 

petitioners’ allegations, stating that Ta 

Chen International (TCI), a U.S. affiliate 

of Ta Chen, purchased and imported the 

SSSSC directly from Tung Mung and 

consequently that Ta Chen did not act 

as a middleman in these transactions. 

For further discussion, see the 

‘‘Middleman Dumping’’ section of this 

notice. 

During the period October through 

December 2008, we received Chia Far’s 

responses to sections A through D of the 

questionnaire. 

In December 2008, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire covering 

section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the 

section covering cost of production 

(COP)). Chia Far responded to this 

supplemental questionnaire in January 

2009. 

In March 2009, we published a notice 

extending the time limit for completion 

of the preliminary results. See Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Japan and Taiwan: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
39056 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 

2Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold 

Engineering Company. 

3 Gilphy 36 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. 

the 2007–2008 Administrative Reviews, 

74 FR 10885 (Mar. 13, 2009). 

In April 2009, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires covering 

sections A through C and a second 

supplemental questionnaire covering 

section D to Chia Far. We received Chia 

Far’s responses to the supplemental 

questionnaires in April and May 2009. 

In June and July 2009, the petitioners 

submitted additional comments 

requesting that the Department treat Ta 

Chen as a middleman for sales between 

Tung Mung and TCI. 

Period of Review 

The POR is July 1, 2007, through June 

30, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order 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 the order 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 

7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 

7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 

7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 

7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 

7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 

7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 

7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 

7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 

7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 

7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 

7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 

7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 

7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 

7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 

7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 

7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 

7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 

7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 

7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 

7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 

7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 

7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 

7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 

7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 

7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 

7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 

7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under the order is 

dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

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 

Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ‘‘Additional 

U.S. Note’’ 1(d). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

order are certain specialty stainless steel 

products 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 the order. 

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 the order. 

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.2

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel 

is also excluded from the scope of the 

order. This product is defined as a nonmagnetic stainless steel manufactured to 

American Society of Testing and 

Materials 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 

36.3

Certain martensitic precipitationhardenable stainless steel is also 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

This high-strength, ductile stainless 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 39057 

4 Durphynox 17 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. 

5This list of uses is illustrated and provided for 

descriptive purposes only. 

6 GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary 

grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 

steel product is designated under the 

Unified Numbering System 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 17.4

Finally, three specialty stainless steels 

typically used in certain industrial 

blades and surgical and medical 

instruments are also excluded from the 

scope of the order. These include 

stainless steel strip in coils used in the 

production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 

carpet knives).5 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, GIN6.6

Partial Rescission of Review 

On September 25, 2008, the 

petitioners withdrew their request for 

administrative review with respect to 

the following 17 companies within the 

time limits set forth in 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1): (1) Chain Chon Industrial 

Co., Ltd.; (2) Chien Shing Stainless Co.; 

(3) China Steel Corporation; (4) Dah Shi 

Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.; (5) Emerdex 

Group; (6) Emerdex Stainless FlatRolled Products, Inc.; (7) Emerdex 

Stainless Steel, Inc.; (8) KNS Enterprise 

Co., Ltd.; (9) Lih Chan Steel Co., Ltd.; 

(10) Maytun International Corp.; (11) 

PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.; (12) Shih Yuan 

Stainess Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd.; (13) 

Tang Eng Iron Works; (14) Waterson 

Corp.; (15) Well Harvest Metal Co., Ltd.; 

(16) Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd. (aka 

Chung Hung Steel Co., Ltd.); and (17) 

Yieh Mau Corp. Section 351.213(d)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations requires 

that the Secretary rescind an 

administrative review if a party 

requesting a review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the notice of initiation. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), because the request for 

administrative review with respect to 

the companies listed above was timely 

withdrawn, we are rescinding this 

review with regard to those companies. 

Further, as noted in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section above, another respondent, 

YUSCO, certified to the Department that 

it had no shipments/entries of subject 

merchandise into the United States 

during the POR. The Department 

subsequently confirmed with CBP the 

no-shipment claim made by YUSCO. 

See the November 13, 2008, 

Memorandum to the File from Henry 

Almond, Analyst, entitled, ‘‘2007–2008 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strips in Coils from 

Taiwan: Entry Information from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP).’’ 

Because the evidence on the record 

indicates that YUSCO did not export 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR, we preliminarily 

determine that it is appropriate to 

rescind the review for YUSCO, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), 

and is consistent with the Department’s 

practice. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 45393, 

45395 (Aug. 5, 2008) (2006–2007 

Preliminary Results), unchanged in 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Taiwan: Final Results and 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 

74704,74706 (Dec. 9, 2008) (2006–2007 

Final Results); and Chia Far Indus. 

Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. 

Supp 2d 1344, 1374 (2004). Finally, as 

noted above, Ta Chen also certified to 

the Department that it had no 

shipments/entries of subject 

merchandise into the United States 

during the POR. As with YUSCO, we 

confirmed with CBP that Ta Chen had 

no shipments/entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See the 

September 9, 2008, Memorandum to the 

File from Henry Almond, Analyst, 

entitled ‘‘Release of Additional Customs 

Entry Data from CBP.’’ Because we 

preliminarily find that Ta Chen did not 

act as a middleman via imports by its 

U.S. affiliate, TCI, we are also 

preliminarily rescinding this review 

with respect to Ta Chen. For further 

discussion of this issue, see the 

‘‘Middleman Dumping’’ section, below. 

Middleman Dumping 

In response to Ta Chen’s certification 

that it had no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR, on 

September 18, 2008, the petitioners 

alleged that Ta Chen was engaged in 

middleman dumping by virtue of the 

fact that its U.S. affiliate, TCI, purchased 

and imported SSSSC from a Taiwanese 

producer/exporter during the POR. 

Specifically, the petitioners alleged that 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Tung Mung, a company whose exports 

of SSSSC are excluded from the 

antidumping duty order, and imported 

by TCI is subject to a middleman 

dumping enquiry because: (1) The 

Department previously found that Ta 

Chen acted as a middleman with respect 

to certain shipments from Tung Mung to 

the United States; and, (2) Ta Chen acts 

as a de facto middleman for Tung Mung 

sales to TCI by virtue of the fact that TCI 

is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ta 

Chen. 

On October 1, 2008, we requested that 

Ta Chen provide additional information 

about its role in the sales at issue, as 

well as explain why it believed the 

transactions at issue were not properly 

subject to a middleman dumping 

investigation. On October 7, 2008, Ta 

Chen responded to this questionnaire 

stating that Ta Chen played no role in 

the transactions. Specifically, Ta Chen 

stated that TCI negotiated directly with 

Tung Mung for these transactions and 

paid Tung Mung directly, and that Tung 

Mung acted as the exporter of record 

and TCI acted as the importer of record 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
39058 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 

for the sales in question. Further, Ta 

Chen argued that the Department’s 

middleman dumping practice does not 

extend to direct sales from a foreign 

producer to an unaffiliated U.S. 

customer. Ta Chen further stated that in 

the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, the Department did not 

apply its middleman dumping 

methodology to this channel of direct 

sales from Tung Mung to TCI. 

On October 24, 2008, June 5 and July 

13, 2009, the petitioners submitted 

additional comments with respect to 

this issue. Ta Chen responded to the 

former comments on November 4, 2008, 

and did not respond to the latter. After 

considering the petitioners’ allegation 

and their additional comments, as well 

as the information submitted by Ta 

Chen, we preliminarily find that Ta 

Chen did not act as a middleman 

because there is no evidence on the 

record demonstrating that Ta Chen was 

involved in the export transactions at 

issue. See the October 7 and November 

4, 2008, Letters from Ta Chen regarding 

Middleman Dumping; and the January 

14, 2008, Memorandum to the File from 

Henry Almond, Analyst, entitled, 

‘‘2007–2008 Administrative Review of 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Taiwan: Entry Documents from 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection.’’ 

Rather, these transactions involved 

direct sales from Tung Mung, a 

company which is excluded from the 

order, to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States, and thus these sales are 

properly excluded from the 

antidumping duty order on SSSSC from 

Taiwan. This finding is consistent with 

our determination in the LTFV 

investigation that Tung Mung’s direct 

sales to the United States were not 

subject to a middleman dumping 

investigation. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils From Taiwan 64 FR 

30592, 30621–30624 (June 8, 1999) 

(where the Department stated ‘‘although 

Tung Mung did have a small number of 

direct sales to TCI, we are not 

considering them to be subject to our 

middleman investigation.’’) We find the 

facts in this segment of the proceeding 

with respect to Tung Mung’s direct sales 

to TCI to be identical to those present 

in the LTFV investigation. Thus, we 

find no basis to treat TCI as a 

middleman, solely by virtue of its 

affiliation with Ta Chen. Accordingly, 

we preliminarily determine it is 

appropriate to rescind the review for Ta 

Chen. 

Affiliation 

In the 2006–2007 administrative 

review, the most recently completed 

segment of this proceeding, we found 

Chia Far and Lucky Medsup Inc. (Lucky 

Medsup), one of Chia Far’s U.S. reseller 

customers, to be affiliated under section 

771(33) of the Act, which states that, for 

purposes of affiliation, ‘‘a person shall 

be considered to control another person 

if the person is legally or operationally 

in a position to exercise restraint or 

direction over that person.’’ The 

Department’s regulations further 

provide that ‘‘{t}he Secretary will not 

find that control exists on the basis of 

these factors unless the relationship has 

the potential to impact decisions 

concerning the production, pricing, or 

cost of the subject merchandise or 

foreign like product.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.102(b)(3). This affiliation 

determination was based upon: (1) Chia 

Far’s degree of involvement in sales 

between Lucky Medsup and its 

customers; (2) Chia Far knew the 

identity of Lucky Medsup’s customers, 

and the customers were aware Chia Far 

was the supplier; (3) Lucky Medsup 

operated as a ‘‘go-through’’ that did not 

maintain any inventory or further 

manufacture products; and, (4) with the 

exception of one transaction involving 

non-subject merchandise, all of the 

products sold by Lucky Medsup during 

the POR were subject merchandise 

produced or exported by Chia Far. See 

2006–2007 Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 

45395–45396, unchanged in 2006–2007 

Final Results. 

The affiliation determination in the 

2006–2007 administrative review is 

consistent with the Department’s 

findings in prior administrative reviews 

of the antidumping duty order on 

SSSSC from Taiwan. See, e.g., Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 

Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in 

Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 6932 

(Feb. 6, 2008), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

3 (2005–2006 Final Results); Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip From Taiwan; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 67 FR 6682 (Feb. 13, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 23 (upheld 

by the Court of International Trade (CIT) 

in Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, et al., 343 F. Supp. 2d 

1344, 1356–57 (CIT 2004)). See also the 

July 29, 2009, Memorandum to the File 

from Henry Almond, Analyst, entitled, 

‘‘Placing Information Regarding the 

Principal-Agent Relationship between 

Lucky Medsup Inc. and Chia Far 

Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. on the 

Record of the 2007–2008 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review on 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Taiwan.’’ 

In the present review, Lucky Medsup 

continues to act as a ‘‘go-through’’ 

without maintaining inventory, and 

Chia Far supplied all of the subject 

merchandise sold by Lucky Medsup 

during the POR. Further, Chia Far has 

submitted no evidence on the record to 

demonstrate that Chia Far is less 

involved in the transactions between 

Lucky Medsup and its customers as 

found in prior reviews. Therefore, we 

continue to find for purposes of these 

preliminary results that Chia Far is 

affiliated with Lucky Medsup because 

Chia Far is in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over Lucky 

Medsup and has the potential to have an 

impact on Lucky Medsup’s decisions 

regarding sales and pricing. 

Identifying Home Market Sales 

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

NV as the price at which the foreign like 

product is first sold (or, in the absence 

of a sale, offered for sale) for 

consumption in the exporting country 

(home market), in the usual commercial 

quantities and in the ordinary course of 

trade and, to the extent practicable, at 

the same level of trade (LOT) as the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP). In implementing this 

provision, the Court of International 

Trade has found that sales should be 

reported as home market sales if the 

producer ‘‘knew or should have known 

that the merchandise {it sold} was for 

home consumption based upon the 

particular facts and circumstances 

surrounding the sales.’’ See Tung Mung 

Dev. Co v. United States, 25 CIT 752, 

783 (2001) (quoting INA Walzlager 

Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. 

Supp. 251 (CIT 1997)). Where a 

respondent has no knowledge as to the 

destination of subject merchandise, 

except that it is for export, the 

Department will classify such sales as 

export sales and exclude them from the 

home market sales database. See 2006– 

2007 Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 

45396, unchanged in 2006–2007 Final 

Results, and Final Determinations of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37182–37183 (July 

9, 1993). 

In its November 14, 2008, 

questionnaire response, Chia Far stated 

that it shipped some of the SSSSC it 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 39059 

sold to home market customers during 

the POR to a container yard or it placed 

the SSSSC in an ocean shipping 

container at the home market customer’s 

request. The Department has 

preliminarily determined that, based on 

the fact that these sales were sent to a 

container yard or placed in a container 

by Chia Far at the request of the home 

market customer, Chia Far should have 

known that the SSSSC in question was 

not for consumption in the home 

market. Therefore, consistent with this 

determination, the Department has 

preliminarily excluded these sales from 

Chia Far’s home market sales database. 

This treatment is consistent with our 

practice in prior administrative reviews 

of this order. See, e.g., 2006–2007 

Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 45396, 

unchanged in 2006–2007 Final Results. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

In order to determine whether Chia 

Far sold SSSSC to the United States at 

prices less than NV, the Department 

compared the EP and CEP of individual 

U.S. sales to the monthly weightedaverage NV of sales of the foreign like 

product made in the ordinary course of 

trade. See section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; 

see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 

Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines 

foreign like product as merchandise that 

is identical or similar to subject 

merchandise and produced by the same 

person and in the same country as the 

subject merchandise. Thus, we 

considered all products covered by the 

scope of the order that were produced 

by the same person and in the same 

country as the subject merchandise, and 

sold by Chia Far in the comparison 

market during the POR, to be foreign 

like products for the purpose of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to SSSSC sold in the 

United States. 

During the POR, Chia Far sold subject 

merchandise and foreign like product 

that it made from hot- and cold-rolled 

stainless steel coils (products covered 

by the scope of the order) purchased 

from unaffiliated parties. Chia Far 

further processed the hot- and coldrolled stainless steel coils by performing 

one or more of the following 

procedures: cold-rolling, bright 

annealing, surface finishing/shaping, 

and slitting. We did not consider Chia 

Far to be the producer of the 

merchandise under review if it 

performed only insignificant processing 

on the coils (e.g., annealing, slitting, 

surface finishing). See Stainless Steel 

Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 74495 

(Dec. 14, 2004), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4 (listing painting, slitting, 

finishing, pickling, oiling, and 

annealing as minor processing for flatrolled products). Furthermore, we did 

not consider Chia Far to be the producer 

of the cold-rolled products that it sold 

if it was not the first party to cold-roll 

the coils. The cold-rolling process 

changes the surface quality and 

mechanical properties of the product 

and produces useful combinations of 

hardness, strength, stiffness, and 

ductility. Stainless steel cold-rolled 

coils are distinguished from hot-rolled 

coils by their reduced thickness, tighter 

tolerances, better surface quality, and 

increased hardness which are achieved 

through cold-rolling. Chia Far’s 

subsequent cold-rolling of the coldrolled coils that it purchased may have 

modified these characteristics to suit the 

needs of particular customers; however, 

it did not impart these defining 

characteristics to the finished coils. 

Thus, we considered the original party 

that cold-rolled the product to be its 

producer. 

Product Comparisons 

The Department compared U.S. sales 

to sales made in the comparison market 

within the contemporaneous window 

period, which extends from three 

months prior to the month in which the 

first U.S. sale was made until two 

months after the month in which the 

last U.S. sale was made. See 19 CFR 

351.414(e)(2). Where there were no sales 

of identical merchandise made in the 

comparison market in the ordinary 

course of trade, the Department 

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making 

product comparisons, the Department 

selected identical and most similar 

foreign like products based on the 

physical characteristics reported by 

Chia Far in the following order of 

importance: grade, hot- or cold-rolled, 

gauge, surface finish, metallic coating, 

non-metallic coating, width, temper, 

and edge. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

The Department based the price of 

Chia Far’s U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise on EP or CEP, as 

appropriate. Specifically, when Chia Far 

sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States prior to 

importation and CEP was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts of the 

record, we based the price of the sale on 

EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act. When Chia Far sold subject 

merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States through its U.S. 

affiliate, Lucky Medsup, we based the 

price of the sale on CEP, in accordance 

with section 772(b) of the Act. 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight 

expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, international freight 

expenses, marine insurance expenses, 

container handling charges, harbor 

maintenance fees, and certificate-oforigin fees, in accordance with section 

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

We based CEP on packed prices sold 

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States. We made deductions for 

foreign inland freight expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, 

container handling expenses, foreign 

harbor construction expenses, 

international freight expenses, marine 

insurance expenses, U.S. duty expenses, 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 

other U.S. transportation expenses, and 

harbor maintenance fees, in accordance 

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted from CEP those selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

imputed credit expenses, bank fees, and 

warranties) and indirect selling 

expenses. 

In addition, we deducted from the 

CEP starting price an amount for CEP 

profit (i.e., profit allocated to expenses 

deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 

(d)(2) of the Act), in accordance with 

sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. 

We computed profit by deducting from 

the total revenue realized on sales in 

both the U.S. and home markets all 

expenses associated with those sales. 

We then allocated profit to the expenses 

incurred with respect to U.S. economic 

activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. 

expenses to total expenses for both the 

U.S. and home markets. 

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, we compared the 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act. Because the aggregate volume 

of Chia Far’s home market sales of the 

foreign like product is more than five 

percent of the aggregate volume of its 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
39060 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 

7Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), 

we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling expenses, 

general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and 

profit for CV, where possible. 

based NV on sales of the foreign like 

product in the respondent’s home 

market. 

B. 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 LOT as the EP or CEP. 

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-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) 

(Plate from South Africa). In order to 

determine whether the comparison 

market 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), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

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

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),7 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. See Micron Tech., Inc. 

v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1313– 

14 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 

sales only, if the NV LOT is at more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

CEP LOT and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from Chia Far 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making the reported home market 

and U.S. sales, including a description 

of the selling activities performed by 

Chia Far for each channel of 

distribution. Chia Far reported that it 

made EP sales in the U.S. market to 

distributors, as well as CEP sales to its 

affiliate, Lucky Medsup. Chia Far 

reported identical selling activities in 

selling to its unaffiliated U.S. customers 

as it did in selling to Lucky Medsup. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for both channels and found 

that Chia Far performed the following 

types of selling activities equally in 

selling to its unaffiliated U.S. customers 

and to Lucky Medsup: (1) Price 

negotiation and communication with 

the customer (i.e., either its unaffiliated 

customers for EP sales, or Lucky 

Medsup for its CEP sales); (2) arranging 

for freight and the provision of customs 

clearance/brokerage services (where 

necessary); and, (3) provision of general 

technical advice (where necessary) and 

quality assurance-related activities, 

including warranty services. These 

selling activities can be generally 

grouped into four selling function 

categories for analysis: (1) Sales and 

marketing; (2) freight and delivery; and 

(3) inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and, (4) warranty and 

technical support. Accordingly, we find 

that Chia Far performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

and warranty and technical support 

services for U.S. sales. Because the level 

of Chia Far’s selling activities did not 

vary by distribution channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, Chia 

Far reported that it made sales to 

distributors and end users. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for home market sales and 

found that Chia Far performed the 

following types of selling activities 

equally for sales to distributors and end 

users: (1) Price negotiation and 

communication with the customer; (2) 

arranging for freight (where necessary); 

(3) provision of general technical advice 

(where necessary) and quality 

assurance-related activities, including 

providing warranty services and rebates; 

and, (4) post-sale warehousing/ 

processing on request. Accordingly, 

based on the selling functions analysis 

described above, we find that Chia Far 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, warranty and 

technical support services, and 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing for home market sales. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market for Chia Far. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers do not 

differ significantly. Specifically, 

although Chia Far performed occasional 

warehousing and post-sale processing 

functions in the home market that it did 

not perform on sales to the United 

States, we do not find these differences 

to be material selling function 

distinctions sufficient to warrant a 

separate LOT for purposes of these 

preliminary results. Thus, we determine 

that the NV LOT is the same as the U.S. 

LOT. 

Regarding the CEP-offset provision, as 

described above, it is appropriate only 

if the NV LOT is at more advanced stage 

of distribution than the CEP LOT and 

there is no basis for determining 

whether the difference in LOTs between 

NV and CEP affects price comparability. 

Because we find that no difference in 

LOTs exists, we do not find that a CEP 

offset is warranted. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

In the 2005–2006 administrative 

review, the most recently completed 

segment of this proceeding as of the date 

of initiation of this review, the 

Department determined that Chia Far 

sold the foreign like product at prices 

below the cost of producing the product 

and excluded such sales from the 

calculation of NV. See 2005–2006 Final, 

73 FR at 6935. As a result, the 

Department initiated an investigation to 

determine whether Chia Far made home 

market sales during the POR at prices 

below their COPs. See section 

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

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, for each foreign like product 

sold by Chia Far during the POR, we 

calculated a weighted-average COP 

based on the sum of Chia Far’s materials 

and fabrication costs, G&A expenses, 

and financial expenses. 

2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales 

Prices 

In order to determine whether sales 

were made at prices below the COP on 

a product-specific basis, we compared 

Chia Far’s weighted-average COP to the 

prices of its home market sales of 

foreign like product, as required under 

section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act, in determining whether to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 39061 

disregard home market sales made at 

prices less than the COP, we examined 

whether such sales were made: (1) In 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time; and, (2) at 

prices which permitted the recovery of 

all costs within a reasonable period of 

time. We compared the COP to home 

market sales prices, less any applicable 

movement charges and direct and 

indirect selling expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of Chia 

Far’s sales of a given product were made 

at prices less than the COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

product because the below-cost sales 

were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of Chia Far’s sales of a given product 

were made at prices less than the COP 

during the POR, we determined such 

sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ within an extended period 

of time (i.e., one year) pursuant to 

sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. 

Based on our comparison of POR 

average costs to reported prices, we also 

determined, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that these sales 

were not made at prices which would 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time. As a result, 

we disregarded the below-cost sales of 

that product. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We based NV for Chia Far on prices 

to unaffiliated customers in the home 

market. We made deductions from the 

starting price, where appropriate, for 

billing adjustments and rebates. We also 

made deductions from the starting price 

for foreign inland freight expenses 

under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

In addition, we made adjustments under 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.410(c) for differences in 

credit expenses, bank fees, and 

warranties. 

We also deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with sections 

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

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. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margin exists for the respondent for the 

period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 

2008: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd 4.30 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be filed 

not later than 35 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and, (3) a list of issues to 

be discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

For Chia Far, we will calculate 

importer-specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those sales. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

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) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) 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 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for Chia Far will 

be that established in the final results of 

this review, except if the rate is less 

than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de 

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case no cash 

deposit will be required; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
39062 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 

1Wheatland Tube Company also requested a 

review of the Borusan Group, Borusan 

Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Borusan 

Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S., Tosyali dis Ticaret A.S., and 

Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. See Letter 

from King & Spalding on behalf of Wheatland Tube 

Company to the Department regarding ‘‘Request for 

Administrative Review,’’ dated March 31, 2009. A 

copy of this public document is available on the 

public record in the Department’s Central Records 

Unit (CRU), room 1117 of the main Commerce 

building. 

2This document is available on the public record 

in the CRU. 

3 thnsp; See Message number 9170203, available 

at http://addcvd.cbp.gov. 

4See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and 

Tube from Turkey: Notice of Rescission, in Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

7394 (February 17, 2009). 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, or the 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) the cash deposit rate for all other 

manufacturers or exporters will 

continue to be 12.61 percent, the all 

others rate made effective by the LTFV 

investigation. See SSSSC Order, 64 FR 

at 40557. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

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. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18722 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–489–502 

Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe 

and Tube from Turkey: Intent to 

Rescind Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

4014, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., 

NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 

(202) 482–4793 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 2, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

welded carbon steel pipe and tube from 

Turkey. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 9077 (March 2, 2009). On March 31, 

2009, we received from Wheatland Tube 

Company, a domestic producer of 

subject merchandise, a request that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of the Yucel Boru Group, 

Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., 

Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama 

A.S., and Yucel Boru ve Profil 

Endustrisi A.S. (collectively, Yucel).1

On April 27, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

administrative review of the CVD order 

for the period January 1, 2008, through 

December 31, 2008, which covered 

Yucel. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 19042, 19044 (April 27, 

2009). 

On June 15, 2009, Yucel notified the 

Department that it had no sales, 

shipments, or entries, directly or 

indirectly, of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the period of 

review (POR).2

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain welded carbon steel pipe and 

tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 

inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of 

any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from 

Turkey. These products are currently 

provided for under the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) as item numbers 7306.30.10, 

7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, 

the written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Intent to Rescind the 2008 

Administrative Review, in Part 

Yucel submitted a letter to the 

Department on June 15, 2009, certifying 

that it had no sales, shipments, or 

entries, directly or indirectly, of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. The petitioner did not 

comment on Yucel’s claim of no sales, 

shipments, or entries. 

On June 16, 2009, we conducted an 

internal customs data query. We also 

issued a ‘‘no shipments inquiry’’ 

message to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), which posted the 

message on June 19, 2009.3 The customs 

data query indicated that Yucel had no 

sales, shipments, or entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. We did not receive any 

information from CBP contrary to 

Yucel’s claim of no sales, shipments, or 

entries of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. See 

Memorandum to the File through 

Melissa Skinner, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, titled ‘‘Customs 

Data Query,’’ (July 7, 2009). 

Based on our analysis of the shipment 

data, we preliminarily determine that 

Yucel did not ship subject merchandise 

to the United States during the POR. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our 

practice,4 we preliminarily determine to 

rescind the review for Yucel. We will 

continue this administrative review 

with respect to the Borusan Group, 

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve 

Ticaret A.S., Borusan Istikbal Ticaret 

T.A.S., Tosyali dis Ticaret A.S., and 

Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. 

Public Comment 

The Department is setting aside a 

period for interested parties to raise 

issues regarding the preliminary 

determination to rescind the 

administrative review for Yucel. The 

Department encourages all interested 

parties to submit such comments within 

20 calendar days of the publication of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period for 

public comment is intended to provide 

the Department with ample opportunity 

to consider all issues prior to the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES