[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 41 (Friday, March 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9515-9516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3700]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-580-844)


Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from The Republic of Korea: 
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terre Keaton Stefanova or Katherine 
Johnson, 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) 482-1280 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 9516]]

Background

    On September 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete 
reinforcing bars from the Republic of Korea for the period September 1, 
2005, through August 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 52061 (September 1, 2006). On September 
29, 2006, the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual 
members\1\ (the petitioners) requested a review of the antidumping duty 
order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from the Republic of Korea 
produced or exported by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), Korea Iron 
and Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO), and Hwanyoung Steel Industries Co., Ltd. 
(HSI) (collectively referred to as the respondents). On October 31, 
2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of an 
administrative review with respect to these companies. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 71 FR 63752 (October 31, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and 
Commercial Metals Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 14, 2006, the Department received letters from each of 
the respondents stating that neither they nor any company deemed 
affiliated with them in the Department's past determinations in this 
proceeding: 1) exported any subject merchandise to the United States; 
2) made any sales of subject merchandise to customers in the United 
States; or, 3) had any entries of subject merchandise for consumption 
by customers in the United States during the period of review (i.e., 
September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006) (POR). In order to 
substantiate the respondents' statements, we conducted a query of the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) database and found no 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On December 18, 2006, 
based on our findings, we notified parties of our intent to rescind the 
review and provided them the opportunity to submit comments (see 
December 18, 2006, memorandum to the file titled Intent to Rescind in 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from the Republic of Korea) (December 18, 2006, memo). 
On January 5, 2007, the petitioners filed comments.
    The petitioners argue that, prior to rescinding this review, the 
Department should ensure that during the POR, DSM's U.S. affiliate, 
Dongkuk International Inc., did not sell subject merchandise produced 
by Korean manufacturers other than DSM, and did not sell from inventory 
subject merchandise that entered during a previous POR.
    Regarding the petitioners' argument, as stated above, we conducted 
a query of the CBP database in order to substantiate the respondents' 
statements that neither they nor their affiliates made exports, sales 
or entries of subject merchandise during the POR, which is our standard 
practice for confirming a respondent's ``no-shipments'' claims. 
Furthermore, the Department's practice, supported by substantial 
precedent, requires that there be entries during the POR upon which to 
assess antidumping duties. See e.g., Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene 
Resin from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 44088 (August 1, 2005). The results of our 
query indicate that there were no entries of subject merchandise during 
the POR. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary on the record of 
this review, we have no reason to call into question the statements 
made by DSM or the other respondents.

Rescission of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind 
an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular 
exporter or producer, if the Department concludes that, during the 
period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales 
of the subject merchandise. Because we found no evidence of entries of 
subject merchandise and because we have no reason to question the 
respondents' statement that they nor any company deemed affiliated with 
them in past segments of this proceeding had sales, exports or entries 
of subject merchandise during the POR, we are rescinding this review 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). See, e.g., Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review in Part, and Determination not to Revoke in Part, 
68 FR 53127 (September 9, 2003) (after finding no evidence of entries 
of subject merchandise from two companies that made ``no-shipments'' 
claims, the Department stated that ``consistent with our practice, we 
are rescinding our review for Diler and Ekinciler'').
    Although the respondents did not have any sales or exports of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, their subject 
merchandise may have entered the United States during the POR under 
their CBP antidumping case number by way of intermediaries (without 
their knowledge). After 15 days of publication of this notice, the 
Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the ``All-
Others'' rate in effect on the date of the entry. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 351.305(a)(3). 
Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: February 26, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-3700 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S