Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10151 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as U.S. producers of a domestic 

like product and under section 771(9)(E) 

as a trade association whose members 

produce the domestic like product in 

the United States. We received complete 

substantive responses from domestic 

interested parties within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not 

receive any responses from any 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

For purposes of these orders, the 

products covered are natural honey, 

artificial honey containing more than 50 

percent natural honey by weight, 

preparations of natural honey 

containing more than 50 percent natural 

honey by weight, and flavored honey. 

The subject merchandise includes all 

grades and colors of honey whether in 

liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or 

chunk form, and whether packaged for 

retail or in bulk form. 

The merchandise covered by these 

orders is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, 

and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these cases are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ from Stephen Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, to 

David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated March 

1, 2007 (Decision Memorandum), which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margin likely 

to prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these sunset 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

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

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Sunset Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on honey from 

Argentina and the PRC would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following percentage 

weighted-average margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers 

Weighted-average 

margin 

(percent) 

Argentina: 

Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA) ..................................................................................................................... 37.44 

Radix S.R.L. (Radix) ............................................................................................................................................................... 32.56 

ConAgra Argentina ................................................................................................................................................................. 60.67 

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................ 35.76 

PRC: 

Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corporation ................. 57.13 

Kunshan Foreign Trading Co ................................................................................................................................................. 49.60 

Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corp ......................................................................... 25.88 

High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp ........................................................................ 45.46 

Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................... 45.46 

Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corporation .......................................................................................................... 45.46 

Henan Native Produce Import and Export Corporation ......................................................................................................... 45.46 

PRC-Wide rate ....................................................................................................................................................................... 183.80 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and this notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) 

of the Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4052 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–533–810) 

Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

stainless steel bar from India. The 

period of review is February 1, 2005, 

through January 31, 2006. This review 

covers imports of stainless steel bar 

from eight producers/exporters. 

We preliminarily find that sales of the 

subject merchandise have been made 

below normal value. In addition, based 

on the preliminary results for the 

respondents selected for individual 

review, we have preliminarily 

determined a weighted–average margin 

for those companies for which a review 

was requested, but that were not 

selected for individual review. 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to assess antidumping duties 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10152 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

1For this Federal Register notice, we use the 

terms ‘‘Viraj,’’ ‘‘the Viraj Group’’ and ‘‘the Viraj 

entities’’ interchangeably. 

on appropriate entries. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. We will issue the 

final results no later than 120 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Holland or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–1279 or (202) 482–

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from India. See 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless 

Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan, 

60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On 

February 1, 2006, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register providing an opportunity for 

interested parties to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on SSB from 

India for the period of review (‘‘POR’’), 

February 1, 2005, through January 31, 

2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). 

On February 4, 2006, we received a 

timely request for review from Isibars 

Limited (‘‘Isibars’’). On February 28, 

2005, Carpenter Technology 

Corporation, Crucible Specialty Metals, 

a division of Crucible Materials 

Corporation, Electralloy Company, 

North American Stainless, Universal 

Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless 

(collectively, the ‘‘petitioners’’) 

requested an administrative review of 9 

companies: the Viraj Group, including 

but necessarily limited to Viraj Alloys, 

Ltd. (‘‘VAL’’), Viraj Forgings, Ltd. 

(‘‘VFL’’), Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (‘‘VIL’’), 

Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL 

Wires, Ltd.;1 Akai Asian (‘‘Akai’’); Atlas 

Stainless (‘‘Atlas’’); Bhansali Bright Bars 

Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Bhansali’’); Grand Foundry, 

Ltd. (‘‘Grand Foundry’’); Meltroll 

Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Meltroll’’); 

Sindia Steels Limited (‘‘Sindia’’); 

Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd. 

(‘‘Snowdrop’’); and Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Venus’’). On 

February 28, 2006, we received timely 

review requests from Facor Steels, Ltd. 

(‘‘Facor’’), and Mukand Ltd. 

(‘‘Mukand’’). 

On April 5, 2006, in accordance with 

section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we initiated an 

administrative review on Akai Asian, 

Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, 

Isibars, Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, 

Snowdrop, Venus, and conditionally 

initiated an administrative review with 

respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj 

Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., 

Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL 

Wires, Ltd., (collectively, the ‘‘Viraj 

entities’’). See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). For further 

discussion of the Department’s 

treatment of the Viraj entities in this 

administrative review, please see the 

‘‘Partial Rescission of Review’’ section 

of this notice. 

In April 2006, we requested 

information concerning the quantity and 

value of sales to the United States from 

the 12 producers/exporters listed in the 

Initiation Notice. The Department 

received responses from all of the 

exporters/producers in April and May of 

2006. Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll notified 

the Department that they had no 

shipments of the subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. 

On June 7, 2006, the Department 

determined that it was not practicable to 

make individual antidumping duty 

findings for each of the 12 companies 

involved in this administrative review. 

Therefore, we selected Venus and 

Bhansali (collectively, ‘‘the 

respondents’’) for individual reviews. 

See Memorandum from Scott Holland to 

Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office 

Director, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from 

India: Respondent Selection,’’ dated 

June 7, 2006, (‘‘Respondent Selection 

Memorandum’’) which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

For further discussion see the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section below. 

On June 8, 2006, the Department 

issued antidumping duty questionnaires 

to the respondents. At that time, we 

instructed each of the respondents to 

respond to the cost section of the 

questionnaire because we had 

disregarded certain below–cost sales in 

the most recently completed review in 

which the companies participated. See 

Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 64 FR 13771 (March 22, 

1999) (Bhansali); see also Stainless Steel 

Bar from India; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 47543 (August 11, 2003) 

(Venus). 

The respondents submitted their 

initial responses to the antidumping 

questionnaire from July 2006 through 

August 2006. After analyzing these 

responses, we issued supplemental 

questionnaires to the respondents to 

clarify or correct information contained 

in the initial questionnaire responses. 

We received timely responses to these 

questionnaires. The petitioners 

submitted comments on the 

questionnaire responses in August, 

September and October 2006. 

On October 20, 2006, the Department 

found that, due to the complexity of the 

issues in this case, including affiliation 

and cost of production, and outstanding 

supplemental responses, it was not 

practicable to complete this review 

within the time period prescribed. 

Accordingly, we extended the time limit 

for completing the preliminary results of 

this review to no later than February 28, 

2007, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. See Stainless 

Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results in 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 61958 (October 20, 2006). 

In January 2007, we requested 

comments from interested parties 

regarding the proper hierarchical order 

of one the model matching 

characteristics as described in the ‘‘Fair 

Value Comparisons’’ section, below. On 

February 12, 2007, we received 

comments from petitioners. We received 

no other comments. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of 

stainless steel in straight lengths that 

have been either hot–rolled, forged, 

turned, cold–drawn, cold–rolled or 

otherwise cold–finished, or ground, 

having a uniform solid cross section 

along their whole length in the shape of 

circles, segments of circles, ovals, 

rectangles (including squares), triangles, 

hexagons, octagons, or other convex 

polygons. SSB includes cold–finished 

SSBs that are turned or ground in 

straight lengths, whether produced from 

hot–rolled bar or from straightened and 

cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that 

have indentations, ribs, grooves, or 

other deformations produced during the 

rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semi–

finished products, cut–to-length flat–

rolled products (i.e., cut–to-length 

rolled products which if less than 4.75 

mm in thickness have a width 

measuring at least 10 times the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10153 

2The Department revoked the order in part, with 

respect to entries of merchandise subject to the 

order produced and exported by ‘‘Viraj,’’ a 

collapsed entity. Viraj included Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; 

Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj Forgings, Ltd. The 

revocation was effective February 1, 2003. See 

Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results, 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, and Determination to Revoke in 

Part, 69 FR 55409, 55410-11 (September 14, 2004). 

thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness having a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness), wire (i.e., cold–formed 

products in coils, of any uniform solid 

cross section along their whole length, 

which do not conform to the definition 

of flat–rolled products), and angles, 

shapes, and sections. 

The SSB subject to these reviews is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 

7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 

7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 

7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

On May 23, 2005, the Department 

issued a final scope ruling that SSB 

manufactured in the United Arab 

Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod 

from India is not subject to the scope of 

this order. See Memorandum from Team 

to Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from 

India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 

India: Final Scope Ruling,’’ dated May 

23, 2005, which is on file in the CRU in 

room B–099 of the main Department 

building. See also Notice of Scope 

Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 

2005). 

Selection of Respondents 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter and producer of the subject 

merchandise. However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department the discretion, when faced 

with a large number of exporters/ 

producers, to limit its examination to a 

reasonable number of such companies if 

it is not practicable to examine all 

companies. Where it is not practicable 

to examine all known exporters/ 

producers of subject merchandise, this 

provision permits the Department to 

review either: (1) a sample of exporters, 

producers, or types of products that is 

statistically valid based on the 

information available at the time of 

selection, or (2) exporters and producers 

accounting for the largest volume of the 

subject merchandise that can reasonably 

be examined. 

Responses to the Department’s 

information request were received in 

April through May 2006. After 

consideration of the data submitted, we 

selected the two largest exporters/ 

producers of the subject merchandise, as 

explained in our Respondent Selection 

Memorandum. 

Therefore, for those companies for 

which a review was requested, but 

which were not selected for individual 

review, the Department has determined 

a review–specific weighted–average 

margin. The review–specific average 

rate for these companies can be found 

in the ‘‘Preliminary Results of the 

Review’’ section below. This is 

distinguished from the ‘‘All Others’’

rate, which is the weighted–average 

margin calculated in the investigation 

and which continues to apply to all 

exporters and producers which have not 

participated in a review. See Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products from 

Canada, 70 FR 73437, 73440 (December 

12, 2005) (‘‘Softwood Lumber Final 

Results’’). 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we intend to verify sales 

information submitted by Bhansali in 

these proceedings to be used in making 

our final results. Due to resource and 

time constraints facing the Department, 

we will not verify Venus in this 

proceeding. 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2005, through 

January 31, 2006. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that, although the 

Department revoked the order in part 

with respect to entries of the 

merchandise subject to the order 

produced and exported by Viraj (Viraj 

Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj 

Forgings, Ltd.), the Department was 

conditionally initiating a review with 

respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj 

Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., 

Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL 

Wires, Ltd., pending further information 

from the requestor as to sales of subject 

merchandise not covered by the 

revocation.2

On April 6, 2006, the Department 

requested that, in light of the previous 

revocation determination, the 

petitioners clarify the specific producers 

or exporters for which they were 

seeking review and, for each company, 

whether they were requesting a review 

as to merchandise produced by that 

company, or only merchandise exported 

by that company. Moreover, the 

Department indicated that absent 

adequate clarification, it intended to 

rescind the administrative review with 

respect to the Viraj Group. See Letter 

from Julie H. Santoboni, Program 

Manager, to the petitioners, dated April 

6, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in 

room B–099 of the main Department 

building. 

On April 7, 2006, the petitioners 

responded to the Department’s request 

for further information stating that they 

were seeking a review of any of the 

listed companies (i.e., the Viraj Group) 

in their capacity as either a producer or 

exporter (or both, with the exception of 

VAL, VIL, and VFL) of merchandise 

subject to the order during the POR. 

Furthermore, the petitioners urged the 

Department to seek information as to 

whether the named companies shipped 

merchandise subject to the order to the 

United States during the POR. The 

petitioners also referred to the changes 

in operation among the various Viraj 

entities that the Department recognized 

in pre–revocation reviews. 

Therefore, in light of the revocation 

and the petitioners’ request, we 

determined that it was appropriate to 

ascertain whether there were suspended 

entries of merchandise subject to the 

order during the POR from the Viraj 

entities. We examined shipment data 

obtained from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) and placed these 

data on the record on May 9, 2006. See 

Memorandum from Team to the File, 

‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Data,’’ dated May 9, 2006, which is on 

file in the CRU in room B–099 of the 

main Department building. Based on 

this information, we determined that 

there are no suspended entries of 

merchandise subject to the order 

involving any of the Viraj entities for the 

POR. See Memorandum from Susan 

Kuhbach, Office Director to Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

‘‘2005–2006 Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Stainless Steel Bar from India - 

Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group 

Companies,’’ dated May 18, 2006, 

which is on file in the CRU in room B–

099 of the main Department building. 

Accordingly, on May 24, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register its intent to rescind the 

administrative review with respect to 

the Viraj entities. See Stainless Steel Bar 

from India: Notice of Intent to Partially 

Rescind Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 29916 

(May 24, 2006). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10154 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on this notice. No comments 

were received. Therefore, the 

Department is rescinding the 

administrative review with respect to 

the Viraj entities and will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

to CBP within 15 days of the publication 

of this notice in the Federal Register. 

Intent to Rescind Administrative 

Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department will rescind an 

administrative review with respect to a 

particular exporter or producer if it 

concludes that during the period of 

review there were ‘‘no entries, exports, 

or sales of the subject merchandise.’’

Accordingly, the Department requires 

that there be entries during the POR 

upon which to assess antidumping 

duties, to conduct an administrative 

review. 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll each 

indicated that it had no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. The Department 

examined CBP data to confirm whether 

these companies shipped subject 

merchandise during the POR. After 

reviewing the data, we confirmed that 

the CBP data showed no entries of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States from these companies during the 

POR. See Memorandum from Team to 

the File, ‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from India: 

No Shipments During the Period of 

Review,’’ dated May 26, 2006, which is 

on file in the CRU in room B–099 of the 

main Department building. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily 

rescinding the administrative review 

with respect to Akai, Atlas, and 

Meltroll. 

Affiliation 

On February 28, 2007, the Department 

determined that Venus and exporter 

Precision Metals are affiliated within 

the meaning of section 771(33) of the 

Act, and also that the two companies 

should be treated as a single entity for 

the purposes of this administrative 

review. Therefore, we preliminarily find 

that the companies should receive a 

single antidumping duty rate. See 

Memorandum from Scott Holland to 

Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office 

Director, ‘‘Relationship of Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Precision 

Metals,’’ dated February 28, 2007, 

which is on file in the CRU in room B–

099 of the main Department building. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of SSB 

from India to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared 

export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described 

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products sold 

by the respondents in the comparison 

market 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. In accordance 

with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, 

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 

respondents’ volume of home market 

sales of the foreign–like product to the 

volumes of their U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. See the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section, below, for further details. 

We compared U.S. sales to monthly 

weighted–average prices of 

contemporaneous sales made in the 

comparison market. Where there were 

no sales of identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade, we compared 

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 

foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. Where there 

were no sales of identical or similar 

merchandise made in the ordinary 

course of trade in the comparison 

market, we compared U.S. sales to 

constructed value (‘‘CV’’). In making 

product comparisons, consistent with 

our determination in the original 

investigation, we matched foreign like 

products based on the physical 

characteristics reported by the 

respondent in the following order: type, 

grade, remelting process, finishing 

operation, shape, and size. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 59 FR 39733–35 (August 

4, 1994); unchanged in the final. 

In the Department’s standard 

questionnaire for these proceedings, all 

respondents are instructed to assign a 

unique code for each AISI grade of SSB 

sold in both the home and U.S. markets 

for matching purposes. There are 9 

standard AISI grades listed in the 

questionnaire. Furthermore, 

respondents are instructed to assign a 

unique code for all additional AISI 

grades of SSB sold. In their initial 

responses to the Department’s 

questionnaire, the respondents in this 

review reported that during the POR, 

they made sales of several AISI grades 

of SSB beyond the standard 9 AISI 

grades and correctly assigned a unique 

code for each additional grade. 

On September 28, 2006, we received 

comments from the petitioners arguing 

that, because the respondents did not 

properly order the additional grades in 

a hierarchical manner, the Department’s 

model match program would select 

dissimilar grades of SSB instead of the 

most similar grades. Accordingly, the 

petitioners argued that the Department 

should itself assign the proper weight 

for these additional grades to ensure a 

proper hierarchical order for matching 

purposes. Moreover, the petitioners 

proposed their own hierarchical 

ordering of the grades. 

These comments led the Department 

to reconsider the weights assigned to the 

reported AISI grades. After consulting 

with Department experts, we instructed 

the respondents to re–order the grade 

hierarchy in their responses to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaires and we assigned new 

weight codes for each reported grade. 

The Department also requested 

comments regarding the proper 

hierarchical ordering. See Letter from 

Brandon Farlander, Program Manager to 

Interested Parties, dated January 29, 

2007, which is on file in the CRU in 

room B–099 of the main Department 

building. 

On February 12, 2007, we received 

comments from the petitioners 

regarding the proper order of one AISI 

grade. We did not receive comments 

from any other interested party. 

Therefore, for the preliminary results we 

are re–ordering the grade hierarchy and 

we are assigning new weight codes for 

each reported grade. 

Date of Sale 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the 

date of sale is normally the date of 

invoice unless satisfactory evidence is 

presented that the material terms of sale, 

price and quantity, are established on 

some other date. In its initial 

questionnaire responses, Venus reported 

its sales using invoice date as the date 

of sale. However, on November 30, 

2006, the company requested that it be 

allowed to use purchase order date as 

the date of sale for both its U.S. and 

home market sales. Venus reported that 

no changes in the terms of sale occurred 

between the purchase order and the 

invoice date. 

In the U.S. market, Venus stated that 

all of its sales are made to order under 

contracts which can include a price 

adjustment factor reflecting market price 

changes for certain alloys used in the 

production of stainless steel bar. 

However, because the terms of the price 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10155 

adjustment are set in advance, there are 

no changes to the material terms of sale 

negotiated by the parties involved in the 

transaction after the purchase order 

date. Therefore, we instructed Venus to 

use the purchase order date as the date 

of sale. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene–Butadiene 

Rubber from Mexico, 64 FR 14872, 

14880 (March 29, 1999), for an 

explanation of our practice in these 

circumstances. Furthermore, we 

instructed Venus to report the gross unit 

price on the invoice (inclusive of any 

surcharges) in the sales listings. 

Bhansali reported that the material 

terms of sale can change up until the 

date of the invoice. Therefore, we are 

using invoice date as the date of sale for 

Bhansali for both markets. 

Export Price 

For sales to the United States, we 

calculated EP, in accordance with 

section 772 of the Act. Section 772(a) of 

the Act defines EP as the price at which 

the subject merchandise is first sold 

before the date of importation by the 

exporter or producer outside the United 

States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States, or to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the United 

States. We calculated EP for both 

Bhansali and Venus because the 

merchandise was sold prior to 

importation by the exporter or producer 

outside the United States to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States, and because constructed export 

price methodology was not otherwise 

warranted. 

We made company–specific 

adjustments as follows: 

(A) Bhansali 

We based EP on the packed, delivered 

duty paid (‘‘DDP’’), cost, insurance, and 

freight (‘‘CIF’’), or cost and freight 

(‘‘CFR’’) price to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States. We made 

deductions for movement expenses in 

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

the Act. These deductions included, 

where appropriate, freight incurred in 

transporting merchandise to the Indian 

port, domestic brokerage and handling, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

U.S. brokerage and handling, terminal 

handling charges and documentation 

fees. See Memorandum from Team to 

the File, ‘‘Preliminary Results 

Calculation Memorandum for Bhansali 

Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated February 

28, 2007, (‘‘Bhansali Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum’’) which is on 

file in the CRU in room B–099 of the 

main Department building. 

(B) Venus 

We based EP on the packed, DDP, or 

CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. We adjusted the 

reported gross unit price, where 

applicable, for billing adjustments. We 

made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

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

deductions included, where 

appropriate, freight incurred in 

transporting merchandise to the Indian 

port, domestic brokerage and handling, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

U.S. brokerage and handling, freight 

incurred in the United States, and U.S. 

customs duties. See Memorandum from 

Team to the File, ‘‘Preliminary Results 

Calculation Memorandum for Venus 

Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated 

February 28, 2007, (‘‘Venus Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum’’) which is on 

file in the CRU in room B–099 of the 

main Department building. 

Duty Drawback 

Bhansali and Venus claimed a duty 

drawback adjustment based on their 

participation in the Indian government’s 

Duty Entitlement Passbook Program. 

Such adjustments are permitted under 

section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. 

The Department will grant a 

respondent’s claim for a duty drawback 

adjustment where the respondent has 

demonstrated that there is (1) a 

sufficient link between the import duty 

and the rebate, and (2) a sufficient 

amount of raw materials imported and 

used in the production of the final 

exported product. See Rajinder Pipe Ltd. 

v. United States (Rajinder Pipes), 70 F. 

Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999) 

(‘‘Rajinder Pipes’’). In Rajinder Pipes, 

the Court of International Trade upheld 

the Department’s decision to deny a 

respondent’s claim for duty drawback 

adjustments because there was not 

substantial evidence on the record to 

establish that part one of the 

Department’s test had been met. See 

also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 

162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (CIT August 15, 

2001); and Stainless Steel Bar from 

India; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review, and Notice of 

Intent to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 10666, 

10671 (March 8, 2004). 

In this administrative review, 

Bhansali and Venus have failed to 

demonstrate that there is a link between 

the import duty paid and the rebate 

received, and that imported raw 

materials are used in the production of 

the final exported product. Therefore, 

because they have failed to meet the 

Department’s requirements, we are 

denying the respondents’ requests for a 

duty drawback adjustment. See 

Bhansali Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum; see also Venus 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum 

for further details. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs 

that NV be based on the price at which 

the foreign like product is sold in the 

home market, provided that the 

merchandise is sold in sufficient 

quantities (or value, if quantity is 

inappropriate) and that there is no 

particular market situation that prevents 

a proper comparison with the EP. The 

Act contemplates that quantities (or 

value) will normally be considered 

insufficient if they are less than five 

percent of the aggregate quantity (or 

value) of sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. 

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 each 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign like product to its 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Bhansali and Venus reported that 

their home market sales of SSB during 

the POR were more than five percent of 

their sales of SSB to the United States. 

Therefore, Bhansali’s and Venus’ home 

markets were viable for purposes of 

calculating NV. Accordingly, Bhansali 

and Venus reported their home market 

sales. 

To derive NV for the respondents, we 

made the adjustments detailed in the 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Comparison Market Prices’’ and 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value’’ sections, below. 

B. Sales to Affiliated Customers 

Bhansali made one sale in the home 

market to an affiliated customer. To test 

whether this sale was made at arm’s 

length, we compared the starting price 

of the sale to the affiliated customer to 

those of unaffiliated customers, net of 

all movement charges, direct and 

indirect selling expenses, discounts, and 

packing. If 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 to the 

unaffiliated parties, we determined that 

the sale made to the affiliated party was 

at arm’s length. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (November 15, 2002). In 

accordance with the Department’s 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10156 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

practice, we excluded the sale from our 

margin analysis because the sale was 

not made at arm’s length. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

segment of the proceeding at the time of 

initiation, the Department found that 

Bhansali and Venus made sales in the 

comparison market at prices below the 

cost of producing the merchandise and 

excluded such sales from the 

calculation of NV. Therefore, the 

Department determined that there were 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that SSB sales were made in the 

comparison market at prices below the 

cost of production (‘‘COP’’) in this 

administrative review for Bhansali and 

Venus. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 

Act. As a result, the Department 

initiated a COP inquiry for these two 

respondents. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of 

the Act, we calculated the COP based on 

the sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for G&A expenses, 

financial expenses, and comparison 

market packing costs, where 

appropriate. We relied on the COP data 

submitted by Bhansali and Venus 

except where noted below: 

2. Individual Company Adjustments 

(A) Bhansali 

1) We recalculated Bhansali’s G&A 

and financial expense ratios, based on 

the relevant accounts identified in 

Bhansali’s fiscal year 2005–06 trial 

balance. 

2) Under section 773(f)(2) of the Act, 

we calculated the implied interest 

expenses incurred on Bhansali’s zero–

interest loans which were outstanding 

to shareholders and directors during 

fiscal year 2005–2006. We added the 

implied interest expenses to Bhansali’s 

financial expenses in our calculation of 

its financial expense ratio. See 

Memorandum from Joe Welton to Neal 

Halper, Director Office of Accounting, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results - Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd,’’

dated February 28, 2007, which is on 

file in the CRU in room B–099 of the 

main Department building. 

(B) Venus 

1) For Venus and Precision Metals, we 

increased the direct material costs by 

the unreconciled difference between the 

raw material purchase prices 

incorporated in the reported costs of 

production and the related raw material 

purchase prices which reconcile to the 

companies’ respective accounting 

systems. 

2) We recalculated Venus’ and 

Precision Metals’ G&A and financial 

expense ratios, based on the relevant 

accounts identified in their respective 

fiscal year 2005–06 trial balances. See 

Memorandum from Joe Welton to Neal 

Halper, Director Office of Accounting, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results - Venus Wire Industries Pvt. 

Ltd,’’ dated February 28, 2007, which is 

on file in the CRU in room B–099 of the 

main Department building. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below–cost sales of 

that product because we determined 

that the below–cost sales were not made 

in substantial quantities. 

Where 20 percent or more of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POR were at prices less than 

the COP, we determined such sales to 

have been made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we 

compared prices to the POR average 

COP, we also determined that such sales 

were not made at prices which would 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

Therefore, we disregarded the below–

cost sales. 

For Bhansali and Venus, we found 

that more than 20 percent of the 

comparison market sales of SSB within 

an extended period of time were made 

at prices less than the COP. Further, the 

prices at which the merchandise under 

review was sold did not provide for the 

recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. Therefore, we 

disregarded these below–cost sales and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

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

U.S. sales of SSB for which there were 

no useable comparison market sales in 

the ordinary course of trade, we 

compared EPs to the CV in accordance 

with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value’’ section, below. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Home Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on ex–factory 

or delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the home market. We 

made adjustments for differences in 

packing in accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the 

Act, and we deducted movement 

expenses consistent with section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, 

where applicable, we made adjustments 

for differences in cost attributable to 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for 

differences in circumstances of sale 

(‘‘COS’’) in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. We also made adjustments, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

comparison market or U.S. sales where 

commissions were granted on sales in 

one market but not in the other (the 

‘‘commission offset’’). Specifically, 

where commissions were granted in the 

U.S. market but not in the comparison 

market, we made a downward 

adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the 

amount of the commission paid in the 

U.S. market, or (2) the amount of 

indirect selling expenses incurred in the 

comparison market. If commissions 

were granted in the comparison market 

but not in the U.S. market, we made an 

upward adjustment to NV following the 

same methodology. Company–specific 

adjustments are described below. 

(A) Bhansali 

We based comparison market prices 

on the packed prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in India. We adjusted the 

starting price by the amount of 

movement expenses: inland freight 

expenses from the plant to the customer. 

We made COS adjustments by 

deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred for home market sales (i.e., 

credit expenses, bank charges and 

commissions) and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses, 

commissions, bank charges and bank 

interest expenses, fumigation charges 

and fees for duty drawback application). 

See Bhansali Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum. 

Bhansali reported billing adjustments 

in its home market sales listing. 

However, the information on the record 

shows that these adjustments are 

actually bad debt write–offs. Therefore, 

for the preliminary results, we have 

treated Bhansali’s reported billing 

adjustments as indirect selling 

expenses. See Bhansali Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum. 

(B) Venus 

Venus 

We based comparison market prices 

on the packed prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in India. We adjusted the 

starting price by the amount of billing 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10157 

3 Venus reported discounts in its home market 

sales listing. However, the information on the 

record indicates that these discounts are actually 

billing adjustments (i.e., adjustments to price). 

Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have 

treated Venus’ reported discounts as billing 

adjustments and adjusted gross unit price 

accordingly. See Venus Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum. 4The marketing process in the United States and 

comparison market begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or customer. 

The chain of distribution between the two may have 

many or few links, and the respondents’ sales occur 

somewhere along this chain. In performing this 

evaluation, we considered each respondent’s 

narrative response to properly determine where in 

the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 5Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) 

of trade in a particular market. For purposes of 

these preliminary results, we have organized the 

common selling functions into four major 

categories: sales process and marketing support, 

freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, 

and quality assurance/warranty services. 6Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, 

where possible. 

adjustments and movement expenses, 

including inland freight expenses from 

the plant to the customer.3 We made 

COS adjustments by deducting direct 

selling expenses incurred for home 

market sales (i.e., credit expenses and 

commissions) and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses, 

commissions, bank charges and bank 

interest expenses, fumigation charges 

and certificate of origin fees). See Venus 

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum. 

D. 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. Sales are made at different 

LOTs if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

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

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 

19, 1997). 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’’),4 including selling 

functions,5 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 levels of trade for 

EP and comparison market sales (i.e., 

NV based on either comparison market 

or third country prices),6 we consider 

the starting prices before any 

adjustments. When the Department is 

unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 

foreign like product in the comparison 

market at the same LOT as the EP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP 

sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make a LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. 

Bhansali reported that it sells to end–

users and trading companies in the 

home market, and to trading companies 

and distributors in the United States. 

Venus reported that it sells to end–users 

and distributors in the home market, 

and to end–users and trading companies 

in the United States. Bhansali and 

Venus reported the same level of trade 

and the same channel of distribution for 

sales in the United States and the home 

market, and neither company has 

requested a LOT adjustment. 

We examined the information 

reported by Bhansali and Venus, and 

found that home market sales to all 

customer categories were identical with 

respect to sales process, freight services, 

warehouse/inventory maintenance, 

advertising activities, technical service, 

and warranty service. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find that each company 

had only one level of trade for its home 

market sales. Bhansali’s and Venus’ EP 

selling activities differ from the home 

market selling activities only with 

respect to freight and delivery, and 

advertising. These differences are not 

substantial. Therefore, we find that the 

EP level of trade is similar to the home 

market LOT and a level–of-trade 

adjustment is not necessary. See section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as reported by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

For the firms listed below, we find 

that the following percentage margins 

exist for the period February 1, 2005, 

through January 31, 2006: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Margin 

Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. .... 2.10 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. .. 0.03 (de 

minimis) 

Review–Specific Average Rate 

Applicable To The Following 

Companies: 

Isibars Limited, Grand Foundry, 

Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited, 

Snowdrop Trading Pvt., 

Ltd.Facor Steels, Ltd., Mukand 

Ltd. .......................................... 2.10 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice. Any hearing, if requested, will 

be held 42 days after the publication of 

this notice, or the first workday 

thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed not later than 35 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: 1) a statement of the 

issue; and 2) a brief summary of the 

argument with an electronic version 

included. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for 

all sales made by respondents for which 

they have reported the importer of 

record and the entered value of the U.S. 

sales, we have calculated importer–

specific assessment rates based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those sales. 

Where the respondents did not report 

the entered value for U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer–specific assessment 

rates for the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer–

specific ad valorem rates based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10158 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). 

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). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondent for which 

it did not know its merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

For those companies for which this 

review is rescinded, antidumping duties 

shall be assessed at rates equal to the 

cash deposit of estimated antidumping 

duties required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). For the companies 

requesting a review, but not selected for 

examination and calculation of 

individual rates, we will calculate a 

weighted–average assessment rate based 

on all importer–specific assessment 

rates excluding any which are de 

minimis or margins determined entirely 

on adverse facts available. See Softwood 

Lumber Final Results, at 70 FR 73442. 

The Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to CBP. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon completion of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of SSB from 

India 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)(1) of the Act: 

1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed 

company will be the rate established in 

the final results of this administrative 

review (except no cash deposit will be 

required if its weighted–average margin 

is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent); 2) for the non–selected 

companies we will calculate a 

weighted–average cash deposit rate 

based on all the company–specific cash 

deposit rates, excluding de minimis 

margins or margins determined entirely 

on adverse facts available; 3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, the previous review, or the 

original investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and 4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous reviews, 

the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established 

in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar 

from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 

1994). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also 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. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results of review in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: February 23, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4057 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China; Initiation 

of New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) received timely 

requests to conduct new shipper 

reviews of the antidumping duty order 

on wooden bedroom furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), 

we are initiating new shipper reviews 

for Golden Well International (HK), Ltd. 

(‘‘Golden Well’’) and its supplier 

Zhangzhou XYM Furniture Product Co., 

Ltd. (Zhangzhou XYM), and for Mei Jia 

Ju Furniture Industrial (Shenzhen) Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Mei Jia’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482–

0414, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department received timely requests 

from Golden Well and Mei Jia on 

January 24 and 22, 2007 respectively, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(c), for new shipper reviews of 

the antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from the PRC. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 

4, 2005). Although Mei Jia submitted a 

timely request, on February 7, 2007, the 

Department rejected Mei Jia’s request 

due to improper filing. However, 

because Mei Jia originally filed its 

request on January 22, 2007, but the 

request was not rejected by the 

Department until February 7, 2007, the 

Department allowed Mei Jia to refile its 

request by February 21, 2007. See the 

letter from the Department to Mei Jia 

dated February 7, 2007. On February 16, 

2007, Mei Jia re–submitted its request 

for a new shipper review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), 

19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii), 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), and 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), in their requests for 

new shipper reviews, Golden Well (as 

an exporter), Zhangzhou XYM, and Mei 

Jia (as a producing exporter) certified 

that they did not export wooden 

bedroom furniture to the United States 

during the period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’); that since the initiation of the 

investigation they have never been 

affiliated with any company that 

exported subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI; and that 

their export activities were not 

controlled by the central government of 

the PRC. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), Golden Well and Mei 

Jia submitted documentation 

establishing the following: (1) The date 

on which they first shipped wooden 

bedroom furniture for export to the 

United States; (2) the volume of their 

first shipment; and (3) the date of their 

first sale to an unaffiliated customer in 

the United States. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES