Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 39047 

is the successor–in-interest to Nordic 

Group A/L and, thus, should receive the 

same antidumping duty treatment with 

respect to fresh and chilled Atlantic 

Salmon from Norway. 

When ‘‘expedited action is 

warranted,’’ the Department may 

publish the notice of initiation and 

preliminary determination concurrently. 

See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethyline Resin 

from Italy: Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Changed 

Circumstances Review, 68 FR 13672 

(March 20, 2003). The Department has 

determined that such action is 

warranted because Nordic Group AS has 

provided prima facie evidence that 

Nordic Group AS is the successor–ininterest, and we have the information 

necessary to make a preliminary finding 

already on the record. 

Based on the record evidence, we find 

that Nordic Group AS operates as the 

same business entity as Nordic Group 

A/L. Thus, we preliminarily determine 

that Nordic Group AS is the successor– 

in-interest to Nordic Group A/L. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Case briefs from interested parties may 

be submitted not later than 14 days after 

the date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues 

raised in those comments, may be filed 

not later than 21 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. All written 

comments shall be submitted in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. Any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 14 days of publication of this 

notice. Any hearing, if requested, will 

be held no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, or the 

first workday thereafter. Persons 

interested in attending the hearing, if 

one is requested, should contact the 

Department for the date and time of the 

hearing. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.216(e), the Department will issue 

the final results of its antidumping duty 

changed circumstances review not later 

than 270 days after the date on which 

the review is initiated, or within 45 days 

if all parties agree to our preliminary 

results. 

During the course of this antidumping 

duty changed circumstances review, 

cash deposit requirements for the 

subject merchandise exported by Nordic 

Group AS will continue to be the all 

others rate established in the 

investigation. See Antidumping Duty 

Order: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic 

Salmon from Norway, 56 FR 14920 

(April 12, 1991). The cash deposit rate 

will be altered, if warranted, pursuant 

only to the final results of this review. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.216. 

Dated: July 28, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18734 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–817] 

Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

United States Steel Corporation (U.S. 

Steel or Petitioner), the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

hot–rolled carbon steel flat products 

(hot–rolled steel) from Thailand. This 

administrative review covers imports of 

subject merchandise produced and 

exported by respondent G Steel Public 

Company Limited (G Steel). The period 

of review is November 1, 2007 through 

October 31, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that: (1) G 

J Steel Public Company Limited (G J 

Steel) is the successor–in-interest to 

Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Company 

Limited (Nakornthai); (2) because of G 

Steel’s refusal to cooperate with the 

Department in the conduct of this 

administrative review, G Steel made 

sales of subject merchandise at less than 

normal value (NV); and (3) G J Steel and 

G Steel constitute a single entity. 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on appropriate entries based on 

the difference between the export price 

and the NV. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell or Robert James AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0408 or (202) 482– 

0469, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 29, 2001, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty order on hot–rolled steel from 

Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Thailand, 66 FR 59562 

(November 29, 2001) (Antidumping 

Duty Order). On November 3, 2008, the 

Department published the opportunity 

to request an administrative review of, 

inter alia, hot–rolled steel from 

Thailand for the period November 1, 

2007, through October 31, 2008. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 65288 

(November 3, 2008). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), on December 1, 2008, 

Petitioner requested an administrative 

review of G Steel’s sales of subject 

merchandise. Additionally, on 

December 1, 2008, G Steel and G J Steel 

submitted a request that the Department 

review both G Steel and G J Steel’s sales. 

G Steel and GJ Steel’s submission 

further requested the Department to 

‘‘treat both companies as affiliated, and 

as affiliated producers, as a single entity 

entitled to a single antidumping duty 

rate as a result of this administrative 

review.’’ On December 24, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of this 

antidumping duty administrative review 

covering the period November 1, 2007, 

through October 31, 2008. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 

79055 (December 24, 2008). 

On January 13, 2009, the Department 

issued its antidumping questionnaire to 

G Steel and G J Steel under separate 

cover letters. On February 1, 2009, G 

Steel and G J Steel submitted a 

combined section A questionnaire 

response (Section A Response). On 

March 12, 2009, prior to the deadlines 

for the remainder of their additional 

questionnaire responses, G Steel and G 

J Steel withdrew their requests for a 

review, and asked the Department to 

rescind the review with respect to G J 

Steel as no other party had requested a 

review of G J Steel. In their request for 

withdrawal, G Steel and G J Steel 

maintained they did not sell subject 

merchandise below normal value during 

this period of review, but explained that 

the ongoing worldwide financial crisis 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
39048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 

prevented them from continuing to 

participate in the review. G Steel and G 

J Steel also stated their request for 

withdrawal comes within 90 days of the 

publication of the notice of initiation. 

Finally, both companies requested the 

return of information disclosed under 

the Department’s Administrative 

Protective Order, to which request the 

Department acceded in its April 9, 2009 

letter to G Steel and G J Steel. 

On April 7, 2009, domestic interested 

party Nucor Corporation (Nucor) 

submitted comments in which Nucor 

argued the Department should treat the 

companies’ withdrawal as a refusal to 

cooperate and should assign both 

companies a margin based on adverse 

facts available. See Nucor’s Comments 

on G / G J Steel’s Withdrawal, dated 

April 7, 2009 (Nucor’s Comments). 

Nucor also insisted the Department 

should not terminate the review with 

respect to G J Steel. Nucor maintains 

there is sufficient evidence on the 

public record of this proceeding to 

establish that the Department should 

treat G Steel and G J Steel as a single 

entity. To do otherwise, Nucor 

maintains, would lead to a significant 

potential for ‘‘manipulation of price or 

production.’’ On April 20, 2009, U.S. 

Steel submitted additional factual 

information for the record (U.S. Steel’s 

Factual Information). On April 28, 2008, 

U.S. Steel submitted comments (U.S. 

Steel’s Comments) arguing the 

Department should not rescind the 

review, either in whole or in part. 

Furthermore, U.S. Steel argued the 

Department should treat G Steel and G 

J Steel as a single entity and continue 

the review with respect to sales of 

subject merchandise by both producers. 

On June 26, 2009, the Department 

rescinded the review with respect to G 

J Steel. See Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From Thailand: 

Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 30524 (June 26, 2009) 

(Partial Rescission). The Department did 

not, however, issue liquidation 

instructions or cash deposit instructions 

with respect to G J Steel because the 

Department indicated it may decide to 

‘‘collapse’’ G Steel with G J Steel 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). See 

Partial Rescission. Accordingly, the 

Department has addressed the issue of 

G Steel and G J Steel’s affiliation and the 

proper treatment of these firms in the 

context of these preliminary results. 

On July 7, 2009 U.S. Steel submitted 

comments and recommendations for the 

Department to consider in reaching its 

preliminary results. 

Period of Review 

The period of review is November 1, 

2007, through October 31, 2008. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of the order, the 

products covered are certain hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products of a 

rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch 

or greater, neither clad, plated, nor 

coated with metal and whether or not 

painted, varnished, or coated with 

plastics or other non–metallic 

substances, in coils (whether or not in 

successively superimposed layers), 

regardless of thickness, and in straight 

lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 

mm and of a width measuring at least 

10 times the thickness. Universal mill 

plate (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on 

four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 

width exceeding 150 mm, but not 

exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness 

of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and 

without patterns in relief) of a thickness 

not less than 4.0 mm is not included 

within the scope of this review. 

Specifically included within the 

scope of this review are vacuum 

degassed, fully stabilized (commonly 

referred to as interstitial–free (IF)) steels, 

high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, 

and the substrate for motor lamination 

steels. IF steels are recognized as low 

carbon steels with micro–alloying levels 

of elements such as titanium or niobium 

(also commonly referred to as 

columbium), or both, added to stabilize 

carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA 

steels are recognized as steels with 

micro–alloying levels of elements such 

as chromium, copper, niobium, 

vanadium, and molybdenum. The 

substrate for motor lamination steels 

contains micro–alloying levels of 

elements such as silicon and aluminum. 

Steel products to be included in the 

scope of this review, regardless of 

definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 

are products in which: i) iron 

predominates, by weight, over each of 

the other contained elements; ii) the 

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 

weight; and iii) none of the elements 

listed below exceeds the quantity, by 

weight, respectively indicated: 

1.80 percent of manganese, or 

2.25 percent of silicon, or 

1.00 percent of copper, or 

0.50 percent of aluminum, or 

1.25 percent of chromium, or 

0.30 percent of cobalt, or 

0.40 percent of lead, or 

1.25 percent of nickel, or 

0.30 percent of tungsten, or 

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 

0.10 percent of niobium, or 

0.15 percent of vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. 

All products that meet the physical 

and chemical description provided 

above are within the scope of this 

review unless otherwise excluded. The 

following products, by way of example, 

are outside or specifically excluded 

from the scope of this review: 

- Alloy hot–rolled steel products in 

which at least one of the chemical 

elements exceeds those listed above 

(including, e.g., American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

specifications A543, A387, A514, 

A517, A506). 

- Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE)/American Iron & Steel 

Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 

and higher. 

- Ball bearing steels, as defined in the 

HTSUS. 

- Tool steels, as defined in the 

HTSUS. 

- Silico–manganese (as defined in the 

HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel 

with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 

percent. 

- ASTM specifications A710 and 

A736. 

- USS abrasion–resistant steels (USS 

AR 400, USS AR 500). 

- All products (proprietary or 

otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM 

specification (sample specifications: 

ASTM A506, A507). 

- Non–rectangular shapes, not in coils, 

which are the result of having been 

processed by cutting or stamping 

and which have assumed the 

character of articles or products 

classified outside chapter 72 of the 

HTSUS. 

The merchandise subject to this 

review is classified in the HTSUS at 

subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 

7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 

7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 

7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 

7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 

7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 

7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 

7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 

7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 

7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 

7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 

7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 

7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 

7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 

7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 

7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. 

Certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat 

products covered by this review, 

including: vacuum degassed fully 

stabilized; high strength low alloy; and 

the substrate for motor lamination steel 

may also enter under the following tariff 

numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 39049 

7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 

7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 

7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 

7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 

7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 

7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 

7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 

may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 

7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 

7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 

7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

under review is dispositive. 

Comments on G Steel’s and G J Steel’s 

Request for Rescission of Review 

In response to the request for 

withdrawal from the review by G Steel 

and G J Steel, Nucor claims the 

Department should treat the two 

companies’ withdrawal as a refusal to 

cooperate with the Department’s 

administrative proceeding and, 

accordingly, rely upon adverse 

inferences in determining the 

antidumping duty. See Nucor’s 

Comments at 1. Nucor further argues the 

Department should not terminate the 

review with respect to G J Steel, but 

instead should determine a final margin 

for both companies based upon adverse 

inferences. Id. at 3. Nucor states the 

Department’s regulations indicate that 

in certain instances, the Department 

will treat companies as a single entity, 

thereby ‘‘collapsing’’ them for purposes 

of calculating or assigning a dumping 

margin. Id. Nucor asserts collapsed 

companies must be: (1) affiliated within 

the meaning section 771(33) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)); (2) 

have production facilities for similar or 

identical products; and (3) present a 

significant potential for manipulation of 

price or production. Nucor claims all 

three of these criteria are satisfied. 

First, Nucor claims G Steel and G J 

Steel are affiliated because G Steel owns 

more than five percent of the 

outstanding voting stock or shares of G 

J Steel, and that G Steel controls G J 

Steel. Id. Additionally, citing the section 

A response, Nucor claims G Steel treats 

G J Steel as a subsidiary and that G 

Steel’s management was granted 

authority over the operations of G J 

Steel. Furthermore, Nucor cites to the 

preparation of consolidated financial 

statements, for the two companies. 

Nucor concludes that G Steel clearly 

controls G J Steel because it owns nearly 

half of G J Steel’s stock, which is clearly 

more than the five percent threshold 

outlined in the statute. Id. at 4. 

Second, Nucor contends that 

according to the section A response, G 

Steel and G J Steel are both ‘‘producers 

of subject merchandise’’ and both 

companies have participated as 

respondents in prior reviews of the 

order. Id. Thus, Nucor avers the second 

factor, namely having production 

facilities for similar or identical 

products, has been fulfilled. 

Third, Nucor argues that G Steel 

having ownership or control over nearly 

half of G J Steel’s stock demonstrates a 

significant potential for manipulation of 

price and/or production. Nucor notes G 

Steel has stated that it assumed direct 

managerial control and authority over G 

J Steel. Nucor further asserts the two 

companies appear to be intertwined, as 

G Steel directly manages G J Steel and 

the companies sell each other’s 

merchandise. Nucor argues that by 

requesting they be treated as a single 

entity for purposes of calculating an 

antidumping duty margin, G Steel and 

G J Steel have acknowledged that their 

operations are not sufficiently separate 

to be assigned separate rates. Id. at 4– 

5. 

Nucor therefore contends the 

Department’s collapsing requirements 

have been met. Nucor argues that if the 

companies are not treated as a single 

entity, there is a significant potential for 

the resulting differences in their 

antidumping margins to result in 

manipulation of price or production by 

shifting production and sales to the 

company with the lower rate. Thus, 

Nucor requests that the Department treat 

G Steel and G J Steel as a single entity. 

See id. at 5. 

In its April 28, 2009, comments, U.S. 

Steel argues the Department should not 

rescind the instant review, either in 

whole or in part. See U.S. Steel’s 

Comments at 2. Citing Notice of 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, 70 

FR 76775, 76777 (December 28, 2005) 

U.S. Steel asserts it is the Department’s 

well–established practice not to rescind 

a review at one party’s request unless all 

the parties that requested a review have 

also withdrawn their requests. U.S. 

Steel further claims the Department 

definitely cannot rescind the review 

with respect to G Steel and, moreover, 

should continue the review for both G 

Steel and G J Steel because the two 

companies should be collapsed and 

treated as a single entity. Id. at 3. 

With regard to collapsing G Steel and 

G J Steel, U.S. Steel claims the two 

companies’ submission of a combined 

section A response demonstrates they 

intended to be treated as a single entity. 

Id. at 3–4. Furthermore, U.S. Steel 

argues that given the joint nature of G 

Steel and G J Steel’s response, it would 

be impossible to calculate separate 

dumping margins for each producer 

based on the information available. 

Thus, U.S. Steel continues, the 

Department has no choice but to treat G 

Steel and G J Steel as a single entity. Id. 

Citing the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), U.S. Steel asserts 

the Department will treat two or more 

producers as a single entity when three 

criteria are satisfied: (1) the producers 

are affiliated; (2) the producers have 

production facilities for similar or 

identical products that would not 

require substantial retooling of either 

facility in order to restructure 

manufacturing priorities; and (3) there is 

a significant potential for the 

manipulation of price or costs of 

production. Id. at 4. U.S. Steel argues 

that each of these criteria are met. 

First, U.S. Steel argues that G Steel 

and G J Steel are affiliated producers 

within the statutory definition at section 

771(33)(E) of the Act, which includes 

(‘‘{a}ny person directly owning, 

controlling, or holding power to vote, 5 

percent or more of the outstanding 

voting stock or shares of any 

organization and such organization’’ as 

‘‘affiliated persons.’’). Id. at 5. U.S. Steel 

contends the section A response 

demonstrates that G J Steel has been a 

subsidiary of G Steel since June 2008, 

with G Steel and its affiliate owning 

49.66 percent of G J Steel’s common 

shares. Id. 

Second, U.S. Steel argues the section 

A response shows ‘‘both companies 

produce only hot–rolled steel,’’ 

including the subject merchandise. See 

id. Furthermore, U.S. Steel contends 

that G Steel and G J Steel use similar 

production processes to produce the 

subject merchandise. Id. 

Third, with regard to the potential for 

manipulation, U.S. Steel states the 

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(2) provide three 

considerations: (1) the level of common 

ownership between the two companies; 

(2) the extent to which managerial 

employees or board members of one 

company sit on the board of the other; 

and (3) whether the companies are 

intertwined. See id. U.S. Steel asserts 

that each of these considerations has 

been satisfied. First, citing the section A 

response, U.S. Steel contends G Steel 

and its affiliate own 49.66 percent of G 

J Steel’s common shares and are the 

largest shareholders of G J Steel. Citing 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 

United Kingdom: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 40064 (July 16, 2006) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 18 (Ball 

Bearings), U.S. Steel asserts the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
39050 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 

Department does not require a majority 

share ownership for collapsing; thus, G 

Steel’s level of ownership is more than 

sufficient for collapsing purposes. 

Moreover, citing the section A response, 

U.S. Steel claims G J Steel was included 

in G Steel’s financial statements because 

G Steel has had financial and 

operational management of G J Steel 

since June 2, 2008. See U.S. Steel’s 

Comments at 6. Second, U.S. Steel avers 

G Steel and G J Steel share common 

board members. Id. Third, U.S. Steel 

insists the two companies have 

intertwined operations. Id. at 7. Citing 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 

the Republic of Korea, 66 FR 8348, 8352 

(January 30, 2001) (Rebar from Korea), 

U.S. Steel also states that G Steel and G 

J Steel’s financial statements ‘‘show 

significant trade accounts receivable 

and payable between the two 

companies.’’ Id. 

Finally, U.S. Steel claims G Steel’s 

and G J Steel’s U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise do not constitute large 

percentages of their home market sales 

of hot–rolled steel. See id. Citing Rebar 

from Korea, 66 FR at 8352, U.S. Steel 

states the Department has previously 

found this demonstrates that companies 

‘‘potentially have the capacity to absorb 

the other’s export market sales, in the 

event they were to shift export sales to 

the company with a lower margin.’’ 

In its July 7, 2009, comments, U.S. 

Steel restated its argument that G Steel 

and G J Steel should be collapsed based 

upon the companies’ representations to 

the Department in this review. 

Moreover, U.S. Steel assets G Steel and 

G J Steel have not rebutted U.S. Steel’s 

April 28, 2009, comments 

demonstrating that G Steel and G J Steel 

should be collapsed. U.S. Steel argues 

the Department should base the 

dumping margin for G Steel and G J 

Steel on AFA because the companies 

failed to cooperate with the Department 

in this review. U.S. Steel argues the 

Department should use the petition rate 

of 20.30 percent because it was 

corroborated and used as total AFA for 

G Steel’s predecessor, Siam Strip Mill 

Public Co., Ltd. (SSM), in the original 

investigation. U.S. Steel concludes this 

rate of 20.30 percent should be used so 

that G Steel and G J Steel do not benefit 

from their refusal to participate in this 

administrative review. 

Department’s Position 

The Department has already 

determined that the review should be 

rescinded with respect to G J Steel. See 

Partial Rescission. However, pursuant to 

the Department’s statement in the 

Partial Rescission that it would examine 

whether G Steel and G J Steel should be 

treated as a collapsed entity as part of 

the ongoing administrative review, an 

analysis of the governing law and 

parties’ arguments on this issue follows 

here. 

The Department’s determination 

concerning collapsing, or treating two or 

more producers as a single entity, is 

governed by the Department’s 

regulations at 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), 

which states the Department will treat 

two or more producers as a single entity 

when three criteria are satisfied: (1) the 

producers are affiliated; (2) the 

producers have production facilities for 

similar or identical products that would 

not require substantial retooling of 

either facility in order to restructure 

manufacturing priorities; and (3) there is 

a significant potential for the 

manipulation of price or costs of 

production. We preliminarily determine 

that each of these criteria is satisfied 

here. 

With respect to the first criterion, 

namely affiliation, there is ample 

evidence that G Steel and G J Steel are 

affiliated. First, the companies’ 

consolidated section A response states 

that G Steel and its affiliate own 49.66 

percent of G J Steel’s common shares. 

See Section A Response, Public Version 

at A–12 A–14. The antidumping statute 

provides numerous criteria that may 

indicate affiliation, including; ‘‘{a}ny 

person directly owning, controlling, or 

holding power to vote, 5 percent or 

more of the outstanding voting stock or 

shares of any organization and such 

organization.’’ See section 771(33)(E) of 

the Act. Thus, the substantial ownership 

interest in G J Steel held by G Steel and 

its affiliate satisfies the statutory 

definition for affiliation. Moreover, G 

Steel’s request was submitted jointly 

with G J Steel and both companies filed 

a single entry of appearance. See G Steel 

and G J Steel’s Request for 

Administrative Review and Entry of 

Appearance, dated December 1, 2008. In 

this document G Steel asked the 

Department to ‘‘treat both companies as 

affiliated and, as affiliated producers, as 

a single entity entitled to a single 

antidumping duty rate as a result of this 

administrative review.’’ Id. Moreover, 

although the Department sent two 

separate cover letters along with its 

questionnaire to G Steel and G J Steel, 

the two companies together submitted a 

joint response to the Department’s 

section A questionnaire. See Section A 

Response, Public Version. As G Steel 

and G J Steel stated in their section A 

response, ‘‘G Steel and G J Steel respond 

to questions regarding U.S. sales 

collectively.’’ Id. at 2, n.2. In addition, 

the response stated, ‘‘G Steel now treats 

G J Steel as its subsidiary and has 

prepared consolidated financial 

statements that include the operations 

of G J Steel from June 2, 2008 forward.’’ 

Id. at A–14. Furthermore, as U.S. Steel 

pointed out in its July 7, 2009 

comments, G Steel stated that it has 

‘‘management authority over the 

financial polices and operations’’ of G J 

Steel. See U.S. Steel’s July 7, 2009 

comments at 3, citing Section A 

Response, Public Version, at Exhibit A– 

12 (G Steel’s Consolidated Financial 

Statements for the Six-month Period 

Ending June 30, 2008, at page 3) In 

short, the joint submissions by G Steel 

and G J Steel demonstrate that the 

companies consider themselves to be 

affiliated. 

With respect to the second criterion, 

the record demonstrates that G Steel and 

G J Steel have production facilities for 

similar or identical products that would 

not require substantial retooling of 

either facility in order to restructure 

manufacturing priorities. G Steel and G 

J Steel state that both companies ‘‘only 

produce and sell hot–rolled coil’’ and 

that both companies ‘‘manufacture 

products to the specifications 

commonly used’’ in both the U.S. and 

home markets. See Section A Response, 

Public Version, at A–40. Further, the 

flow charts and production processes 

shown in Exhibit A–15 of the 

consolidated section A response 

describe a similar production process 

used by both companies. Id. at Exhibit 

A–15. Finally, the companies’ product 

brochures describe nearly identical 

processes and time lengths. Id. at 

Exhibit A–16 (G Steel’s and G J Steel’s 

product brochures, at page 1 of each 

brochure). Further, neither G Steel nor 

G J Steel would have to substantially 

retool its facilities in order to shift 

production of subject merchandise 

towards the company that has been 

assigned the lower margin. See Section 

A Response, Public Version at A–7 - A– 

8, A–41 and Exhibit A–15. 

With respect to the third criterion, the 

significant potential for manipulations 

of prices or costs of production, the 

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(2) sets forth three 

considerations: (1) the level of common 

ownership between the two companies; 

(2) the extent to which managerial 

employees or board members of one 

company sit on the board of the other; 

and (3) whether the companies are 

intertwined. The Department concurs 

with U.S. Steel’s assertion that each of 

these considerations has been satisfied. 

First, concerning the level of common 

ownership, G Steel and its affiliate own 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 39051 

49.66 percent of G J Steel’s common 

shares and are the largest shareholders 

of G J Steel. See Section A Response, 

Public Version at A–13 A–14. As 

evidenced in Ball Bearings, the 

Department’s practice is that a majority 

share is not required for collapsing; 

thus, G Steel’s level of ownership is 

sufficient for collapsing purposes. See 

Ball Bearings, Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 18. 

Moreover, the record demonstrates that 

G J Steel was included in G Steel’s 

financial statements because G Steel has 

had financial and operational 

management of G J Steel since June 2, 

2008. See Section A Response, Public 

Version at Exhibit A–12. Second, the 

Department concurs with U.S. Steel’s 

assertion that G Steel and G J Steel share 

common board members. See U.S. 

Steel’s New Factual Information; U.S. 

Steel’s Comments, at Exhibit B. Third, 

there is substantial evidence that the 

companies are intertwined. U.S. Steel is 

correct in its assertion that G Steel and 

G J Steel’s financial statements ‘‘show 

significant trade accounts receivable 

and payable between the two 

companies.’’ See Section A Response, 

Public Version at Exhibit A–12 (G 

Steel’s Consolidated Financial 

Statements for the year ending March 

31, 2008 at 11–12). Additionally, G 

Steel’s and G J Steel’s U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise do not constitute 

large percentages of their home market 

sales of hot–rolled steel. See id. at 

Exhibit A–1. Thus, consistent with our 

findings in Rebar from Korea, this 

demonstrates that the two companies 

‘‘potentially have the capacity to absorb 

the other’s export market sales, in the 

event they were to shift export sales to 

the company with a lower margin.’’ 

Rebar from Korea, 66 FR at 8352. 

Further, G Steel and G J Steel sell 

subject merchandise to the same 

affiliated customers, and these affiliated 

customers resell both of the companies’ 

merchandise in the home market. See 

Section A Response, Public Version, at 

Exhibit A–1. In addition, G Steel and G 

J Steel sell each other’s merchandise in 

the home market. See id. at A–6 

(‘‘{S}ome home market sales made by G 

Steel were sold by G J Steel, and vice 

versa.’’). 

Therefore, pursuant to the 

Department’s regulations and practice, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that all criteria concerning 

the collapsing of G Steel and G J Steel 

have been satisfied. To treat G J Steel 

and G Steel as separate and independent 

entities would contradict the record 

evidence, including the companies’ 

representations to the Department that 

they are affiliated. 

Successor–in-Interest Determination 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that it is necessary to 

conduct a successor–in-interest analysis 

in the context of the instant review to 

examine the effect of G J Steel’s name 

change. Specifically, during the period 

of review, Nakornthai changed its name 

to G J Steel. See Section A Response, 

Public Version at A–1. The Department 

notes that if the Department were to 

collapse G J Steel and G Steel without 

examining the name change, it would be 

possible for G J Steel to use Nakornthai’s 

lower rate. Therefore, the Department 

must determine whether G J Steel is, in 

fact, the successor–in-interest to 

Nakornthai. 

In making a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From 

Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002); Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 

(May 13, 1992). While no single factor 

or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh 

and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From 

Norway; Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 

(March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid from Israel; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the 

evidence demonstrates that with respect 

to the production and sale of the subject 

merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the former company, the Department 

will accord the new company the same 

antidumping treatment as its 

predecessor. Successorship analyses can 

be carried out as part of an 

administrative review. See, e.g., Notice 

of Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, Notice of 

Intent to Revoke in Part: Individually 

Quick Frozen Raspberries from Chile, 71 

FR 45000, at fn.1 (August 8, 2006); 

unchanged in relevant part in final 

results, Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, and Final Determination to 

Revoke the Order In Part: Individually 

Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from 

Chile, 72 FR 70295 (December 11, 2007). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that G J Steel is the 

successor–in-interest to Nakornthai. 

First, with regard to management, it 

appears G J Steel’s management is the 

same as Nakornthai’s management. For 

example, Mr. Sirichai Sae–Kue was 

identified as Nakornthai’s Vice– 

President - Commercial and Ms. Panee 

Tanaprateepkul as Nakornthai’s Vice– 

President - Administration. See Section 

A Response, Public Version at Exhibit 

A–12 (Nakornthai Annual Report for 

2007 at 86). Public records, specifically 

the Business Week profile for G J Steel, 

state that Mr. Sae–Kue now serves as the 

President of G J Steel and Ms. Panee 

Tanaprateepkul continues to serve as 

Vice President of Procurement, Human 

Resources & Admin & Logistic for G J 

Steel. See Business Week Profile for G 

J Steel Public Company Limited, 

available at http:// 

investing.businessweek.com/research/ 

stocks/people/people.asp?ric=GJS.BK 

(last accessed on July 28, 2009), which 

is incorporated on the record of this 

proceeding as a Memorandum to the 

File, dated July 29, 2009. 

Second, with regard to production 

facilities, record evidence demonstrates 

Nakornthai used the same production 

facilities as G J Steel. For example, the 

Nakornthai Annual Report for 2007 

shows Nakornthai’s production facilities 

are located at Hermaraj Chonburi 

Industrial Estate in Chonburi See 

Section A Response, Public Version at 

Exhibit A–12 at 76 (Nakornthai Annual 

Report for 2007). The last page of the 

product catalog for G J Steel identifies 

the same location identified above for 

the G J Steel factory. See Section A 

Response, Public Version at Exhibit A– 

16. Furthermore, the same exhibits 

show the head office of Nakornthai was 

in the same location as the head office 

of G J Steel, and that Nakornthai and G 

J Steel produced or produce the same 

product, namely hot–rolled coil. 

Although the Department lacks 

information concerning G J Steel’s 

supplier relationships and customer 

base, there is additional evidence to 

demonstrate that G J Steel is the 

successor–in-interest to Nakornthai. For 

example, the Nakornthai Annual Report 

for 2007 shows that Nakornthai owned 

100 percent of the shares of NSM Steel 

Company Limited (NSM Cayman). NSM 

Cayman is identified as a subsidiary of 

Nakornthai which was incorporated for 

the purpose of issuing notes and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
39052 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 

debentures and using the proceeds to 

make loans to Nakornthai. See id. at 

Exhibit A–12 at 108. The interim 

financial statements for G J Steel show 

that NSM Cayman is a subsidiary of G 

J Steel, and that G J Steel possesses the 

same relationship with NSM Cayman as 

did Nakornthai. See Section A 

Response, Public Version at Exhibit A– 

12, at 11 (interim financial statements 

for G J Steel for the three and six month 

periods ending June 30, 2008). 

Moreover, the notes to the interim 

financial statements indicate that on 

June 5, 2008, the company changed its 

name from ‘‘Nakornthai Strip Mill 

Public Company’’ to ‘‘G J Steel Public 

Company Limited.’’ See Section A 

Response, Public Version, Exhibit A–12 

at 38 n.18 (notes to the interim financial 

statements for the three-month and sixmonth periods ending June 30, 2008 

(unaudited)). This company name 

change was registered with the Business 

Development Department of the 

Thailand Ministry of Commerce on June 

5, 2008, and the Stock Exchange of 

Thailand was informed to ‘‘change the 

stock symbol from ‘‘NSM’’ to ‘‘GJS’’ in 

accordance with the change of the 

company’s name at the same date.’’ Id. 

at n.18 and n. 19 (notes to the interim 

financial statements for the three-month 

and six-month periods ending 

September 30, 2008 (unaudited)). 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

For the reasons discussed below and 

in the accompanying AFA 

memorandum, we preliminarily 

determine that the use of AFA is 

appropriate with respect to G Steel and 

G J Steel. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title, or provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified as provided in 

section 782(i) of the Act, the 

administering authority shall use, 

subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. Section 

782(d) of the Act provides that if the 

administering authority determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

administering authority shall promptly 

inform the responding party and 

provide an opportunity to remedy the 

deficient submission. Section 782(e) of 

the Act states further that the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

the information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

On March 12, 2009, G Steel and G J 

Steel notified the Department that it 

would not continue to participate in this 

administrative review and requested the 

removal of its business–proprietary 

information (BPI) from the 

administrative record. We granted this 

request and have removed all of its BPI 

from the administrative record. We also 

instructed counsel for Petitioner to 

destroy all copies of G Steel’s and G J 

Steel’s BPI data. See Memorandum to 

the File, dated April 8, 2009; see also 

Letters from the Department to G Steel 

and G J Steel, dated April 8, 2009; 

Letters from the Department to U.S. 

Steel and Nucor, dated April 9, 2009. 

Because G Steel ended its 

participation in the instant 

administrative review, G Steel’s actions 

constitute a refusal to provide 

information necessary to conduct the 

Department’s antidumping analysis 

under sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of 

the Act. Further, due to its withdrawal 

from this review, G Steel has not 

responded to sections B, C and D of the 

Department’s questionnaire. Thus, G 

Steel’s withdrawal significantly 

impedes conduct of the administrative 

review. See section 776(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine to base the margin for G Steel 

and, accordingly G J Steel, on facts 

otherwise available, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the 

Act. Further, absent any response on the 

record from G Steel, sections 782(d) and 

(e) of the Act do not apply. 

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

In applying the facts otherwise 

available, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the Department finds an 

interested party has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information, 

in reaching the applicable 

determination under this title the 

Department may use an inference 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. 

Adverse inferences are appropriate 

‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 

103–316, vol. 1 (1994) at 870 (SAA). 

Further, ‘‘affirmative evidence of bad 

faith on the part of a respondent is not 

required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 

1997). 

G Steel and G J Steel’s request for 

withdrawal from the review and its 

failure to answer sections B, C and D of 

the Department’s questionnaire 

constitutes a refusal to participate in the 

administrative review. This 

demonstrates that G Steel and G J Steel 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to comply with the 

Department’s request for information. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 

Stainless Steel Hollow Products From 

Japan, 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 

2000) (the Department applied total 

AFA where a respondent failed to 

respond to subsequent antidumping 

questionnaires). 

C. Selection and Corroboration of 

Information Used as Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record. When selecting an AFA rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information, the Department’s practice 

has been to ensure the margin is 

sufficiently adverse to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner. See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 

Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

As total AFA, we have assigned G 

Steel and G J Steel the rate of 20.30 

percent which is the highest alleged 

margin, as recalculated by the 

Department, for Thailand in the original 

antidumping petition. See 

Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini 

to Bernard T. Carreau, ‘‘Certain Hot– 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 39053 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Thailand: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value--The Use 

of Facts Available for Siam Strip Mill 

Public Co. Ltd, and the Corroboration of 

Secondary Information,’’ dated April 23, 

2001 (Facts Available Memorandum). 

This rate was assigned as AFA to SSM, 

which was G Steel’s predecessor in the 

investigation, and corroborated by the 

Department for its preliminary 

determination in the investigation. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

From Thailand, 66 FR 22199 (May 3, 

2001) (Thailand Preliminary 

Determination). 

We find this rate is sufficiently 

adverse to serve the purposes of facts 

available and is appropriate, 

considering that this AFA rate is the 

highest rate determined for any 

respondent in this proceeding. In 

choosing the appropriate balance 

between providing a respondent with an 

incentive to cooperate to the best of its 

ability and imposing a rate that is 

reasonably related to the respondent’s 

prior commercial activity, selecting the 

highest margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United 

States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 

1990). 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department shall corroborate secondary 

information used for facts available by 

reviewing independent sources 

reasonably at its disposal. Information 

from a prior segment of the proceeding 

constitutes secondary information. See 

SAA at 870; see also Antifriction 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Rescission of Administrative 

Reviews in Part, and Determination To 

Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574, 

55577 (September 15, 2004). The word 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870; see 

also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996). To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will examine, to the extent 

practicable, the reliability and relevance 

of the information used. 

With respect to the reliability aspect 

of corroboration, the Department found 

the rate of 20.30 percent to be reliable 

in the investigation. See Thailand 

Preliminary Determination. There, the 

Department pointed out that the export 

prices in the petition were based on 

import values compiled by the U.S. 

Customs Service. See Thailand 

Preliminary Determination, 66 FR at 

22202. These data were from publicly 

available sources (i.e., official U.S. 

government statistics). The Department 

also compared the prices and expenses 

of export sales to the United States by 

Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Co., 

Ltd. (Sahaviriya), a respondent in the 

investigation, to corroborate the 

information submitted in the petition. 

See Facts Available Memorandum. This 

memorandum was moved to this 

segment of the proceeding in the 

‘‘Memorandum to the File, Transfer of 

Certain Documents from Past Segments 

of Proceeding in the Current 

Administrative Review of Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Thailand (A–549–917)’’, dated July 29, 

2009 (Document Transfer 

Memorandum). Therefore, we found the 

U.S. price from the petition margin was 

sufficiently corroborated. 

For the NV calculation, Petitioner 

relied upon constructed value, 

consisting of cost of manufacture 

(COM), selling, general, administrative 

expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, and 

profit. Petitioner based depreciation, 

SG&A, interest, and profit on 

Sahaviriya’s publicly available financial 

statements. Therefore, because these 

data were based on publicly available 

financial statements, we found them to 

be sufficiently corroborated. Petitioner 

calculated COM based on its own 

production experience, adjusted for 

known differences between costs 

incurred to produce hot rolled steel in 

the United States and Thailand using 

publicly available data. To corroborate 

these data, the Department compared 

them to the reported COM of Sahaviriya 

and its affiliates. Our analysis showed 

the petitioner’s reported costs were 

reasonably close to the data submitted 

by Sahaviriya and its affiliates. Based on 

this analysis, we found that the COM 

data used in the antidumping petition 

have probative value. See Facts 

Available Memorandum at 5 and 6. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. In the 

investigation, the Department 

determined that in the absence of 

verifiable data provided by the non– 

responding company, the petition 

information was the best approximation 

available to the Department of that 

company’s pricing and selling behavior 

in the U.S. market. This information 

was relevant to the mandatory 

respondent which refused to participate 

in the investigation. See Facts Available 

Memorandum. No party contested the 

application of that rate in the 

investigation. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value; Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From Thailand, 66 

FR 49622 (September 28, 2001). 

To further corroborate the rate, the 

Department examined the final results 

of the most recent segment of this 

proceeding, which is the changed 

circumstances review. We note the rate 

of 20.30 percent is corroborated by 

margins calculated for individual 

transactions in the changed 

circumstances review. See Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review 

and Reinstatement in the Antidumping 

Duty Order, 74 FR 22885 (May 15, 

2009); and Document Transfer 

Memorandum. As certain of the 

calculations are based on proprietary 

information, see also ‘‘Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Thailand: Corroboration of Total 

Adverse Facts Available for G Steel 

Public Company Limited (G Steel) and 

G J Steel Public Company Limited 

(formerly Nakornthai Strip Mill Public 

Company, Ltd.)’’ dated July 29, 2009, for 

further discussion. 

Because the AFA rate of 20.30 percent 

is the highest rate assigned to any 

company in the history of this order, we 

find the rate is relevant for use in this 

administrative review and, therefore, it 

has probative value for use as AFA. As 

such, the Department finds this rate to 

be corroborated to the extent 

practicable, consistent with section 

776(c) of Act. We have, therefore, 

selected the rate of 20.30 percent for G 

Steel and G J Steel as this rate is the 

highest margin assigned to any company 

in the history of this order. Thus, we 

consider the 20.30 percent rate to be 

sufficiently high so as to encourage 

participation in future segments of this 

proceeding. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

dumping margin for G Steel and G J 

Steel (formerly known as Nakornthai 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
39054 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices 

Strip Mill Public Company Limited) is 

20.30 percent for the period November 

1, 2007, through October 31, 2008. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose pertinent 

memoranda concerning these 

preliminary results to parties in this 

review within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of the publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). If a hearing is requested, the 

Department will notify interested 

parties of the hearing schedule. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this review. The Department will 

consider case briefs filed by interested 

parties within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Interested parties may file rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, no later than 35 days after 

the publication of these preliminary 

results. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Any 

hearing, if requested, will be held two 

days after the deadline for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with each argument 

a statement of the issue, a brief 

summary of the argument, and a table of 

authorities cited. Further, we request 

that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

a diskette containing an electronic copy 

of the public version of such comments. 

We intend to issue the final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of issues 

raised in any written comments, within 

120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results in the Federal 

Register. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Because we are 

relying on total AFA to establish G Steel 

and G J Steel’s dumping margin, we will 

instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin 

of 20.30 percent ad valorem to all 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR that was produced and/or 

exported by G Steel and G J Steel 

(formerly known as Nakornthai Strip 

Mill Public Company Limited). The 

Department intends to issue instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the publication of 

the final results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review, 

the following deposit requirements will 

be effective upon completion of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication of the final results 

of this administrative review, as 

provided in section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 

(1) the cash–deposit rate for G Steel and 

G J Steel (formerly known as Nakornthai 

Strip Mill Public Company Limited) 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of this review; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

covered in this review, 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 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 subject merchandise; (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

segment of the proceeding, the cash– 

deposit rate will continue to be the all– 

others rate established in the LTFV 

investigation which is 4.44 percent. See 

Antidumping Duty Order. These cash– 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. The 

preliminary results of administrative 

review and this notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: July 29, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18733 Filed 8–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–834] 

Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from 

Mexico: Extension of Time Limit for 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Enforcement Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6312 and (202) 

482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 10, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published 

the preliminary results of administrative 

review of purified 

carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico for 

the July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, 

period of review. See Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 16359 (April 10, 2009). 

The final results for this administrative 

review are currently due no later than 

August 8, 2009. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

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

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to complete the 

final results of an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. 

However, if it is not practicable to 

complete the review within these time 

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

allows the Department to extend the 120 

day time period for the final results to 

180 days. 

The Department has determined it is 

not practicable to complete this review 

within the statutory time limit because 

of significant issues that require 

additional time to evaluate. These 

include questions involving entry dates 

and entered values, necessitating a 

post–preliminary supplemental 

questionnaire. Accordingly, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the final results of this 

administrative review until no later than 

October 7, 2009, which is 180 days after 

the date on which the preliminary 

results of review were published. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES