Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39615 

1See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director 

Office 2, ‘‘The Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales 

Below the Cost of Production for Hitachi Cable 

Limited and Hitachi Cable America,’’ (December 18, 

2008) (Hitachi Cable Cost Initiation Memo); and 

Memorandum to James Maeder, Director Office 2, 

‘‘The Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales Below the Cost 

of Production for Nippon Kinzoku Co., Ltd. and its 

Affiliates S–Metal, Goka, Marubeni-Itochu Steel 

America Inc., and Marubeni-Itochu Specialty Steel 

Corp.,’’ (December 18, 2008) (NKKN Cost Initiation 

Memo). 

2The verification of Hitachi Cable’s cost response 

will be conducted after the preliminary results. 

This expansion is needed in order to 

fully participate with the other partner 

agencies and meet the data collection 

requirements of the CRC. USAID 

proposes to add the following categories 

of records: Citizenship, military service 

information, social security number, 

medical clearance information and 

security clearance information. This 

information is required by the CRC to 

help determine which individuals are 

appropriate for each mission, assist in 

coordinating visas, registering 

individuals on military flights, ensuring 

individuals are properly cleared for 

deployment and determining if an 

individual has the appropriate 

clearances to attend briefings. 

Philip M. Heneghan, 

Chief Privacy Officer. 

USAID–029 

Revise the categories of records 

covered by the system to read as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

This system will contain information 

relevant to the planning, administration, 

training, and management of CRC 

personnel. Categories of records 

include: Full name, date of birth, 

height/weight, hair/eye color, blood 

type, marital status, religion, 

citizenship, home address, home phone 

number, mobile phone number, 

personal e-mail address, emergency 

contact, next of kin, passport 

information, driver license information, 

military record, citizenship, social 

security number, medical clearance 

information and security clearance 

information. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–18942 Filed 8–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6116–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–845] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Japan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests 

by two manufacturers/exporters, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 

(SSSSC) from Japan with respect to 

Hitachi Cable Ltd. (Hitachi Cable) and 

Nippon Kinzoku Co., Ltd. (NKKN). The 

review covers the period July 1, 2007, 

through June 30, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that 

NKKN and Hitachi Cable did not make 

sales below normal value (NV). 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of the 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 7, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–4929 and (202) 

482–4007, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In response to timely requests by two 

manufacturers/exporters, on August 26, 

2008, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of initiation of 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

SSSSC from Japan with respect to 

Hitachi Cable and NKKN covering the 

period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 

2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 73 FR 50308 (August 26, 2008). 

On September 4, 2008, we issued the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Hitachi Cable and NKKN. We received 

responses to sections A, B, and C of the 

questionnaire from Hitachi Cable and 

NKKN in October and November 2008. 

On November 12, and 25, 2008, the 

petitioners in the above-referenced 

administrative review (i.e., AK Steel 

Corporation and Allegheny 

Technologies, Inc.) (collectively, the 

petitioners) filed timely sales-belowcost-allegations against Hitachi Cable 

and NKKN, respectively. See 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(2)(ii). Accordingly, on 

December 18, 2008, the Department 

initiated sales-below-cost investigations 

on both Hitachi Cable and NKKN and, 

as a result, required Hitachi Cable and 

NKKN to submit responses to section D 

of the Department’s antidumping duty 

questionnaire.1 We received responses 

to section D of the questionnaire in 

January 2009. 

During the period December 2008 

through July 2009, we issued to Hitachi 

Cable and NKKN supplemental 

questionnaires with respect to sections 

A, B, C, and D of the original 

questionnaire. We received responses to 

these questionnaires during the period 

December 2008 through July 2009. 

On March 9, 2009, pursuant to section 

751(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), the Department 

postponed the preliminary results of 

this review until July 31, 2009. See 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Japan and Taiwan: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of the 2007–2008 Administrative 

Reviews, 74 FR 10885 (March 13, 2009). 

Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, 

the Department conducted verifications 

of the questionnaire responses 

submitted by Hitachi Cable, NKKN, and 

one of NKKN’s affiliated resellers, 

Nikkin Steel Co., Ltd. in May and June 

2009.2 See Memoranda to The File, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of 

Nippon Kinzoku Co, Ltd. (NKKN) in the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Japan,’’ (July 31, 

2009) (‘‘NKKN Sales Verification 

Report’’); ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

Response of Nikkin Steel Co., Ltd. 

(Nikkin Steel) in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils (SSSSC) 

from Japan,’’ (July 13, 2009); 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Responses of 

Hitachi Cable Limited (HCL) and 

Hitachi Cable America (HCA) 

(collectively Hitachi Cable) in the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Japan,’’ (July 20, 

2009) (‘‘Hitachi Cable Sales Verification 

Report’’); and ‘‘Verification of the Cost 

Response of Nippon Kinzoku Co., Ltd. 

in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Japan,’’ (June 3, 2009). The 

verification reports are on file and 

available in the Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 1117 of the Department’s 

main building. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
39616 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 

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

Engineering Company. 

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

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this order, the 

products covered are certain SSSSC. 

Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject sheet and strip is 

a flat-rolled product in coils that is 

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less 

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is 

annealed or otherwise heat treated and 

pickled or otherwise descaled. The 

subject sheet and strip may also be 

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

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) 

provided that it maintains the specific 

dimensions of sheet and strip following 

such processing. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS) 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 HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the Department’s written 

description of the merchandise under 

review is dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope of this 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 HTS, ‘‘Additional U.S. 

Note’’ 1(d). 

Flapper valve steel is also excluded 

from the scope of the order. This 

product is defined as stainless steel strip 

in coils containing, by weight, between 

0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 

1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and 

between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 

manganese. This steel also contains, by 

weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or 

less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 

percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less. The product is manufactured by 

means of vacuum arc remelting, with 

inclusion controls for sulphide of no 

more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of 

no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 

valve steel has a tensile strength of 

between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength 

of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or 

minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of 

between 460 and 590. Flapper valve 

steel is most commonly used to produce 

specialty flapper valves in compressors. 

Also excluded is a product referred to 

as suspension foil, a specialty steel 

product used in the manufacture of 

suspension assemblies for computer 

disk drives. Suspension foil is described 

as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless 

steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 

microns, with a thickness tolerance of 

plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface 

glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. 

Suspension foil must be supplied in coil 

widths of not more than 407 mm, and 

with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks 

may only be visible on one side, with 

no scratches of measurable depth. The 

material must exhibit residual stresses 

of 2 mm maximum deflection, and 

flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. 

Certain stainless steel foil for 

automotive catalytic converters is also 

excluded from the scope of this 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 this 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.’’ 3

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel 

is also excluded from the scope of this 

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

American Society of Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) specification B344 

and containing, by weight, 36 percent 

nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 

percent iron, and is most notable for its 

resistance to high temperature 

corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 

degrees Celsius and displays a creep 

rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square 

millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This 

steel is most commonly used in the 

production of heating ribbons for circuit 

breakers and industrial furnaces, and in 

rheostats for railway locomotives. The 

product is currently available under 

proprietary trade names such as ‘‘Gilphy 

36.’’ 4

Certain martensitic precipitationhardenable stainless steel is also 

excluded from the scope of this order. 

This high-strength, ductile stainless 

steel product is designated under the 

Unified Numbering System (UNS) as 

S45500-grade steel, and contains, by 

weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 

7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 

manganese, silicon and molybdenum 

each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent 

or less, with phosphorus and sulfur 

each comprising, by weight, 0.03 

percent or less. This steel has copper, 

niobium, and titanium added to achieve 

aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as 

high as 1,700 Mpa and ultimate tensile 

strengths as high as 1,750 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 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39617 

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

6This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 

descriptive purposes only. 7 ‘‘GIN4 Mo,’’ ‘‘GIN5’’ and ‘‘GIN6’’ are the 

proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 

8We note that NKKN, the other respondent in 

this review, also produced test samples for 

customers in the normal course of business. See 

NKKN Sales Verification Report, at 5. 

9At verification we observed that one of the 

reported home market sales selected for individual 

review also consisted of a test sample. See Hitachi 

Cable Sales Verification Report, at 6. 

used in the manufacture of television 

tubes and is currently available under 

proprietary trade names such as 

‘‘Durphynox 17.’’ 5

Finally, three specialty stainless steels 

typically used in certain industrial 

blades and surgical and medical 

instruments are also excluded from the 

scope of this order. These include 

stainless steel strip in coils used in the 

production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 

carpet knives).6 This steel is similar to 

AISI grade 420 but containing, by 

weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of 

molybdenum. The steel also contains, 

by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 

1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less, and includes between 0.20 and 

0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 

and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 

sold under proprietary names such as 

‘‘GIN4 Mo.’’ The second excluded 

stainless steel strip in coils is similar to 

AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight, 

carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 

percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 

0.50 percent, manganese of between 

0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no 

more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of 

no more than 0.020 percent. This steel 

has a carbide density on average of 100 

carbide particles per 100 square 

microns. An example of this product is 

‘‘GIN5’’ steel. The third specialty steel 

has a chemical composition similar to 

AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 

and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of 

between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but 

lower manganese of between 0.20 and 

0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more 

than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 

0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 

more than 0.020 percent. This product 

is supplied with a hardness of more 

than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer 

processing, and is supplied as, for 

example, ‘‘GIN6.’’ 7

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 

2007, through June 30, 2008. 

Bona Fides Analysis of Hitachi Cable’s 

U.S. Sale 

In comments submitted to the 

Department on November 12, 2008, 

February 2, 2009, and February 23, 

2009, the petitioners alleged that 

Hitachi Cable’s sole U.S. sale during the 

POR was not a bona fide transaction, 

and requested that the Department 

rescind the review of Hitachi Cable on 

this basis. Specifically, the petitioners 

argued that the price, quantity, payment 

period and delivery terms were not 

consistent with normal commercial 

considerations for the product and 

producer concerned. They concluded 

that, given the totality of the 

circumstances, there is no evidence to 

support a finding that the sale at issue 

was a bona fide commercial transaction 

reflective of normal commercial terms to 

be followed for future sales. 

For the following reasons, we 

preliminarily determine that Hitachi 

Cable’s sale to the United States is a 

bona fide sale. We confirmed at 

verification that the U.S. sale at issue 

consisted of a sample of subject 

merchandise sold for testing purposes. 

As explained in the sales verification 

report and as discussed in Hitachi 

Cable’s questionnaire responses, Hitachi 

Cable produces a niche product to the 

exact specifications of each customer. It 

routinely produces test samples for both 

established and new customers in a 

similar quantity as that requested by the 

U.S. customer in this case. See Hitachi 

Cable Sales Verification Report, at 6–8.8

Although the home market database 

contains no sales of identical 

merchandise to serve as a comparison to 

the U.S sale, it contains several sales of 

similar subject merchandise with prices 

and quantities that are comparable to 

those of the U.S. sale. See ‘‘Hitachi 

Cable Ltd. Preliminary Results Margin 

Calculations’’ (July 31, 2009) (Hitachi 

Calculation Memo).9 Furthermore, we 

find that the delivery method Hitachi 

Cable employed for the U.S. sale was 

not inconsistent with normal industry 

practice for small-quantity sales, as the 

same delivery method was used by the 

other respondent in this review, NKKN 

(see Hitachi Cable Sales Verification 

Report, at 6; and NKKN Sales 

Verification Report, at 5). Finally, with 

respect to the payment, Hitachi Cable 

established payment terms in 

accordance with its normal sales 

process, and provided a reasonable 

explanation at verification for why the 

timing of the actual payment was 

inconsistent with the payment terms 

indicated on the sales documents. See 

Hitachi Cable Sales Verification Report 

at 14. 

Therefore, based on the record 

information and our verification thereof, 

we preliminarily determine that Hitachi 

Cable’s sale to the United States 

constitutes a bona fide commercial 

transaction. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of SSSSC 

from Japan to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP) to the NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Constructed Export Price/Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice, below. We made 

adjustments to the reported U.S. and 

home market sales data based on 

verification findings, as described in the 

Hitachi Calculation Memo and 

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Nippon 

Kinzoku Ltd. Preliminary Results 

Margin Calculations’’ (July 31, 2009). 

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

Act, for NKKN and Hitachi Cable we 

compared the EPs or CEPs, as 

appropriate, of individual U.S. 

transactions to the weighted-average NV 

of the foreign like product where there 

were sales made in the ordinary course 

of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production Analysis’’ section, below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by NKKN and Hitachi Cable 

covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, to 

be foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. 

sales of SSSSC to sales of SSSSC made 

in the comparison market for NKKN and 

Hitachi Cable within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

to the month of the U.S. sales until two 

months after the U.S. sales. Where there 

were no sales of identical merchandise 

in the comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales of 

SSSSC to sales of SSSSC of the most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. 

In making the product comparisons, 

we matched foreign like products based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by the respondents in the following 

order: Grade of stainless steel, whether 

hot- or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, 

metallic coating, non-metallic coating, 

width, temper, and edge trim. 

Constructed Export Price/Export Price 

For certain U.S. sales made by NKKN 

we used EP methodology, in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, because 

the subject merchandise was sold 

directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
39618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 

10Where NV is based on 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. 

importation and CEP methodology was 

not otherwise warranted based on the 

facts of record. 

For Hitachi Cable’s U.S. sale and 

certain of NKKN’s U.S. sales, we 

calculated CEP in accordance with 

section 772(b) of the Act because the 

subject merchandise was sold for the 

account of NKKN and Hitachi Cable by 

their respective subsidiaries in the 

United States to unaffiliated purchasers. 

A. Hitachi Cable 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP, as the 

subject merchandise was first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter, or by a seller affiliated with 

the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 

not affiliated with the producer or 

exporter. 

We made deductions from the starting 

price for international freight expenses, 

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 those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (e.g., 

imputed credit expenses), and indirect 

selling expenses (including inventory 

carrying costs and other indirect selling 

expenses). 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by Hitachi Cable and its U.S. affiliate on 

its sales of the subject merchandise in 

the United States and the profit 

associated with those sales. 

B. NKKN 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated EP for those sales 

where the merchandise was sold to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation by the 

exporter or producer outside the United 

States. We based EP on prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price, where appropriate, for 

foreign inland freight expenses, foreign 

inland insurance expenses, and foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP for those 

sales where the merchandise was first 

sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 

States before or after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter, or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter. 

We made deductions from the starting 

price for movement expenses, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act; these included, where 

appropriate, foreign inland freight and 

insurance expenses, foreign brokerage 

and handling expenses, marine 

insurance expenses, international 

freight expenses, U.S. brokerage and 

handling expenses, and U.S. 

warehousing expenses. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

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

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (e.g., 

imputed credit expenses and warranty 

expenses), and indirect selling expenses 

(including inventory carrying costs and 

other indirect selling expenses). 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by NKKN and its U.S. affiliate on its 

sales of the subject merchandise in the 

United States and the profit associated 

with those sales. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Markets 

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. Based on this comparison, we 

determined that both NKKN and Hitachi 

Cable had viable home markets during 

the POR. Consequently, we based NV on 

home market sales for NKKN and 

Hitachi Cable. 

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

During the POR, NKKN and Hitachi 

Cable sold the foreign like product to 

affiliated customers. To test whether 

these sales were made at arm’s-length 

prices, we compared, on a productspecific basis, the starting prices of sales 

to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, 

net of all applicable billing adjustments, 

discounts and rebates, movement 

charges, direct selling expenses, and 

packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.403(c) and in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, where the price 

to the affiliated party was, on average, 

within a range of 98 to 102 percent of 

the price of the same or comparable 

merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, 

we determined that sales made to the 

affiliated party were at arm’s length. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 

2002) (establishing that the overall ratio 

calculated for an affiliate must be 

between 98 percent and 102 percent in 

order for sales to be considered in the 

ordinary course of trade and used in the 

NV calculation). Sales to affiliated 

customers in the comparison market 

that were not made at arm’s-length 

prices were excluded from our analysis 

because we considered these sales to be 

outside the ordinary course of trade. See 

19 CFR 351.102(b). 

C. Level of Trade 

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

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 

the EP 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. See 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 (November 19, 

1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order 

to determine whether the comparison 

sales were at different stages in the 

marketing process than the U.S. sales, 

we reviewed the distribution system in 

each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), 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),10 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 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 

3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). When 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39619 

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. sales 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 a more advanced stage 

of distribution than the LOT of the CEP 

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, at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from each 

respondent regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

foreign market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed by each respondent for each 

channel of distribution. Companyspecific LOT findings are summarized 

below. 

1. Hitachi Cable 

Hitachi Cable made one CEP sale 

through the U.S. affiliate, HCA, to an 

end-user in the United States on a 

delivered basis. We examined the 

selling functions performed by Hitachi 

Cable for the sale, but not those 

performed by HCA, consistent with our 

normal practice for CEP sales. See Plate 

from South Africa, at 61731, 61732. 

Hitachi Cable performed the following 

selling functions for the U.S. sale: 

invoicing, customer visits, finished 

goods storage, freight arrangements, and 

payment collection. As there was only 

one channel of distribution for the CEP 

sale made during the POR, we find that 

there is one LOT in the U.S. market. 

In the Japanese market, Hitachi Cable 

made sales to end-users on a delivered 

basis. We found that Hitachi Cable 

performed the following selling 

functions for home market sales: 

invoicing, customer visits, finished 

goods storage, freight arrangements, and 

payment collection. As there was only 

one channel of distribution for home 

market sales, we find that there was one 

LOT in the home market. As the selling 

functions performed for U.S. and home 

market customers are identical, we 

preliminarily determine that the U.S. 

and home market sales were made at the 

same LOT during the POR. 

Consequently, we matched the CEP sale 

to comparison-market sales at the same 

LOT, and no LOT adjustment is 

warranted. 

2. NKKN 

NKKN reported that it made EP and 

CEP sales to end-users in the United 

States through two channels of 

distribution. For EP sales, NKKN made 

sales to end-users on an FOB basis 

through an unaffiliated Japanese reseller 

with knowledge that the subject 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States (channel 2). For CEP sales, 

NKKN made sales to end-users through 

affiliated trading companies in Japan 

and the United States, on either an exwarehouse or a delivered basis (channel 

1). 

We compared the selling activities 

performed for the two sales channels in 

the United States to determine whether 

they were indicative of different LOTs. 

For EP sales, NKKN performed the 

following selling functions: sales and 

marketing (e.g., invoicing and joint 

customer visits), freight and delivery 

services, and warranty claim processing. 

For CEP sales, NKKN and/or its 

affiliated Japanese trading company 

performed the following selling 

functions: sales and marketing (e.g., 

invoicing and joint customer visits), and 

freight and delivery services. Thus, with 

the exception of warranty claim 

processing, NKKN performed the same 

selling activities for sales made through 

both channels of distribution in the 

United States. With respect to warranty 

claim processing, which NKKN 

performed for EP sales, but not CEP 

sales, we find that this selling function 

alone does not constitute a substantial 

difference in selling functions and, 

therefore, is not sufficient to establish a 

different LOT. As explained in the 

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2), ‘‘{s}ubstantial differences 

in selling activities are a necessary, but 

not sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stage of 

marketing.’’ Therefore, we determine 

that one LOT exists in the U.S. market. 

In the Japanese market, NKKN and its 

affiliated resellers made sales to 

unaffiliated trading companies and endusers through two channels of 

distribution (i.e., direct from NKKN to 

trading companies, or out of inventory). 

For direct sales, NKKN and/or its 

affiliated resellers performed the 

following selling functions: sales and 

marketing (e.g., invoicing and customer 

visits), freight and delivery services, 

print advertising, and warranty claim 

processing. For sales made out of 

inventory, NKKN’s affiliated resellers 

performed warehousing/inventory 

maintenance in addition to the selling 

functions listed above for direct sales. 

We do not find that the performance of 

warehousing/inventory maintenance 

alone is sufficient to distinguish sales 

made out of inventory as a separate 

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

Therefore, we determine that there is 

one LOT in the home market. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to 

the home-market LOT, and found that 

the selling functions performed for 

customers in both markets were 

virtually identical. Specifically, NKKN 

and/or its affiliates in Japan provided 

sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery services, and warranty claim 

processing at equal levels of intensity to 

both markets. The exception was print 

advertising, which NKKN performed at 

a low level of intensity in the home 

market only. As the performance of this 

selling function alone is not sufficient to 

establish a different LOT between sales 

made in the Japanese market and those 

made to the United States, we 

preliminarily determine that the sales to 

the U.S. and home market during the 

POR were made at the same LOT. Id. 

Consequently, we matched EP and CEP 

sales to comparison-market sales at the 

same LOT and no LOT adjustment was 

warranted. 

D. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on our analysis of the 

petitioners’ allegations, we found that 

there were reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that Hitachi Cable’s 

and NKKN’s sales of SSSSC in the home 

market were made at prices below their 

COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 

773(b) of the Act, we initiated salesbelow-cost investigations to determine 

whether Hitachi Cable’s and NKKN’s 

sales were made at prices below their 

respective COPs. See the Hitachi Cable 

Cost Initiation Memo, and the NKKN 

Cost Initiation Memo. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ COPs based on the sum of 

their costs of materials and conversion 

for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for G&A expenses and interest 

expenses. See ‘‘Test of Comparison 

Market Sales Prices’’ section below for 

treatment of comparison-market selling 

expenses. 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by Hitachi Cable and 

NKKN for the cost reporting period in 

their most recent supplemental section 

D questionnaire responses for the COP 

calculations, except for the following 

instances where the information was not 

appropriately quantified or valued. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
39620 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 

11The CRP for Hitachi Cable was shifted from 

July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008 (POR) to April 

1, 2007, through March 31, 2008 (Hitachi Cable’s 

fiscal year). 

Hitachi Cable 

1. The only product Hitachi Cable 

sold in the United States during the 

POR was produced within the POR but 

outside of the alternative cost reporting 

period (CRP).11 Accordingly, the 

reported costs for the U.S. product were 

based on the standard costs and 

variances applicable during the POR but 

outside the alternative CRP. Because 

Hitachi Cable’s reported costs for the 

products sold in the home market were 

based on the standard costs and 

variances for the alternative CRP, we 

used the alternative CRP standard costs 

and variances to calculate the costs of 

the U.S. product. 

2. We included certain non-operating 

income and expense items in the 

numerator of the G&A expense ratio 

calculation, which Hitachi had 

excluded from its calculation. Also, we 

used the cost of goods sold from Hitachi 

Cable’s financial statements as the 

denominator in the calculation of the 

G&A expense ratio as opposed to the 

total COM plus beginning inventory, as 

calculated by Hitachi. 

3. We estimated the consolidated 

packing expense based on Hitachi’s 

unconsolidated packing expenses and 

removed it from the cost of goods sold, 

which is used as the denominator in the 

calculation of the financial expense 

ratio. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 

in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 7710 (February 11, 2008), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 12. 

4. Hitachi did not provide a cost for 

one product. Thus, for the preliminary 

results, we used a similar product’s cost 

as a surrogate cost. 

See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 

Director of Office of Accounting, ‘‘Cost 

of Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Hitachi Cable 

Ltd.’’ (July 31, 2009). 

NKKN 

1. We used the revised COM for the 

U.S. steel grades that NKKN provided at 

the Department’s request after the cost 

verification. 

2. We revised the reported COM to 

include the cost of re-slitting that was 

performed by affiliated resellers, 

consistent with the statute to treat such 

costs as a part of COM. See sections 

773(a)(6) and 773(b)(3)(A) of the Act. 

NKKN originally included these costs in 

its affiliated resellers’ home market sales 

databases. 

See Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 

Director of Office of Accounting, ‘‘Cost 

of Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Nippon Kinzoku 

Co., Ltd.’’ (July 31, 2009). 

Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the weighted-average COP to 

the home market sales of the foreign like 

product, adjusted where applicable, as 

required under section 773(b) of the Act, 

in order to determine whether the sale 

prices were below the COP. For 

purposes of this comparison, we used 

COP exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices, adjusted for any 

applicable billing adjustments, were 

exclusive of any applicable movement 

charges, rebates, discounts, and direct 

and indirect selling expenses, and 

packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

comparison-market sales made at prices 

below the COP, we examine, in 

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

and (B) or the Act: (1) whether, within 

an extended period of time, such sales 

were made in substantial quantities; and 

(2) whether such sales were made at 

prices which permitted the recovery of 

all costs within a reasonable period of 

time in the normal course of trade. 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s comparison-market sales 

of a given product are at prices less than 

the COP, we do not disregard any 

below-cost sales of that product because 

we determine that in such instances the 

below-cost sales were not made within 

an extended period of time and in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of a respondent’s sales 

of a given product are at prices less than 

the COP, we disregard the below-cost 

sales because: (1) they were made 

within an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act, and (2) based on our comparison of 

prices to the weighted-average COPs for 

the POR, they were at prices that would 

not permit the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. 

We found that, for certain specific 

products, more than 20 percent of 

Hitachi Cable’s and NKKN’s 

comparison-market sales were at prices 

less than the COP and, in addition, such 

sales did not provide for the recovery of 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

We therefore excluded these sales and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

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

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison-Market Prices 

1. Hitachi Cable 

We based NV for Hitachi Cable on 

prices to unaffiliated customers in the 

home market, or prices to affiliated 

customers in the home market that were 

determined to be at arm’s length. Where 

appropriate, we made adjustments to 

the starting price for billing 

adjustments. We also made deductions 

for inland freight (plant/warehouse to 

customer), under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act, and home market credit 

expenses, pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 

the Act. 

Furthermore, we made adjustments 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

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. 

2. NKKN 

We based NV for NKKN on delivered 

prices to unaffiliated customers in the 

home market, or prices to affiliated 

customers in the home market that were 

determined to be at arm’s length. Where 

appropriate, we made adjustments to 

the starting price for billing adjustments 

and rebates. We made deductions, 

where appropriate, for pre-sale 

warehousing expenses and inland 

freight (plant to internal or external 

warehouse, and plant to customer) and 

insurance expenses, under section 

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

For home market price-to-EP 

comparisons, we made circumstance-ofsale adjustments for differences in credit 

expenses and warranty expenses, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 

For home market price-to-CEP 

comparisons, we made deductions for 

home market credit and warranty 

expenses, pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C) of the 

Act. 

Furthermore, we made adjustments 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

We also deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with section 

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


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39621 

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 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

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

follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent margin 

Hitachi Cable Limited 0.00 

Nippon Kinzoku Company Limited.0.23 (de minimis) 

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 five days after the date for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

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

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are encouraged to submit 

with each argument: (1) A statement of 

the issue; (2) A brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

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. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 

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 Hitachi Cable’s U.S. sales and the 

majority of NKKN’s U.S. sales, we note 

that the respondents reported the 

entered value for the U.S. sales in 

question. We will calculate importerspecific 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 the examined 

sales for that importer. 

For some of NKKN’s U.S. sales, we 

note that NKKN did not report the 

entered value for the U.S. sales in 

question. We will calculate importerspecific per-unit duty assessment rates 

by aggregating the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and dividing this 

amount by the total quantity of those 

sales. To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

ratios based on the estimated entered 

value. 

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., at or 

above 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 (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). 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 allothers rate effective during the POR (i.e., 

40.18 percent) 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 each specific 

company listed above 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 the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating 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 

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will be 40.18 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. These 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. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–18959 Filed 8–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES