Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12765 

1Petitioners are Carpenter Technology 

Corporation, Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc., and 

Electralloy Corporation. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–428–830] 

Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on stainless steel bar from 

Germany manufactured by 

Schmiedewerke Groditz GmbH 

(‘‘SWG’’). The period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

covers March 1, 2005, through February 

28, 2006. We preliminarily determine 

that SWG did not make sales of subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) in the United States during the 

POR. We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Damian Felton, Audrey R. Twyman, 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) 482–0133, (202) 482–

3534, or (202) 482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 7, 2002, the Department 

published an antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar from Germany. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless 

Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 10382 

(March 7, 2002) (‘‘Investigation Final’’). 

On October 10, 2003, the Department 

published an amended antidumping 

duty order on stainless steel bar from 

Germany. See Notice of Amended 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless 

Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, 

Korea, and the United Kingdom, 68 FR 

58660 (October 10, 2003). 

On March 31, 2006, we received a 

request for a new shipper review from 

SWG for the period March 1, 2005, 

through February 28, 2006. We initiated 

the review on April 26, 2006. See Notice 

of Initiation of New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Review: Stainless 

Steel Bar from Germany, 71 FR 24642 

(April 26, 2006). 

On June 9, 2006, and July 13, 2006, 

SWG responded to Section A and 

Sections B and C, respectively, of the 

antidumping questionnaire. On the 

extended deadline of October 11, 2006, 

SWG submitted their supplemental 

questionnaire response. 

On December 4, 2006, we extended 

the time limit for the preliminary results 

of this new shipper review to no later 

than March 15, 2007. See Stainless Steel 

Bar from Germany: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

New Shipper Review, 71 FR 70363 

(December 4, 2006). 

Scope of the Order 

For the purposes of this order, the 

term ‘‘stainless steel bar’’ includes 

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. Stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) 

includes cold–finished stainless steel 

bars 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 length flat–rolled 

products (i.e., cut length rolled products 

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness 

have a width measuring at least 10 times 

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness having a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness), products that have been cut 

from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, 

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 this order 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, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), we intend to verify the 

information provided by SWG on April 

16–18, 2007. 

Bona Fide Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated whether the 

U.S. transaction reported by SWG 

during the POR was a bona fide sale. 

Among the factors examined was the 

relationship between SWG and its 

reported U.S. customer. Petitioners1

contended that SWG and its customer 

were affiliated by virtue of a principal/ 

agent relationship. Based on our 

investigation, we preliminarily 

determine that SWG and its U.S. 

customer were not affiliated and that 

SWG’s sale was made on a bona fide 

basis. For a complete discussion of our 

analysis, see the Department’s 

memorandum to the file entitled, ‘‘Bona 

Fide Nature of Schmiedewerke Groditz 

GmbH’s Sales in the New Shipper 

Review for Stainless Steel Bar from 

Germany,’’ dated March 12, 2007, on 

file in room B–099 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States by 

SWG were made at less than NV, we 

compared the U.S. export price (‘‘EP’’) 

to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export 

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

this notice, below. In accordance with 

section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we 

calculated monthly weighted–average 

prices for NV and compared these to the 

prices of individual EP transactions. We 

have used the invoice date as the date 

of sale in both markets. We describe 

below our calculation of NV and EP. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

described by the Scope of the Order 

section, above, which were produced 

and sold by SWG in the home market, 

to be foreign like products for purposes 

of determining appropriate comparisons 

to U.S. sales. We made comparisons 

using the following five model match 

characteristics: (1) Finish; (2) Grade; (3) 

Remelting; (4) Final Finishing; (5) 

Shape; and (6) Size. 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, EP is defined as the price at 

which the subject merchandise is first 

sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 

date of importation by the producer or 

exporter of the subject merchandise 

outside of the United States to an 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12766 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser 

for exportation to the United States. In 

accordance with section 772(b) of the 

Act, constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) is 

the price at which the subject 

merchandise is 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 of 

such merchandise or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter, as adjusted under 

subsections (c) and (d). For SWG’s sales 

to the United States, we used EP in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act because its merchandise was sold 

directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser prior to importation, and CEP 

was not otherwise warranted based on 

the facts of record. 

We calculated EP based on the prices 

charged to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. We based 

EP on the packed FOB port prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 

including domestic inland freight, 

domestic inland insurance, 

international freight, U.S. customs duty, 

and U.S. brokerage and handling. 

Normal Value 

A. Viability 

In order to determine whether there is 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product during the POR is 

equal to or greater than five percent of 

the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise during the POR), 

we compared SWG’s volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. See section 

773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act. Based on 

SWG’s reported home market and U.S. 

sales quantities, we determine that the 

volume of aggregate home market sales 

during the POR is equal to or greater 

than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

Accordingly, we find that SWG had a 

viable home market. Therefore, we 

based NV on home market sales to 

unaffiliated purchasers made in the 

usual quantities and in the ordinary 

course of trade. 

B. Price–to-Price Comparisons 

We compared U.S. sales with 

contemporaneous sales of the foreign 

like product in Germany. As noted 

above, we selected the comparison sales 

based on the following criteria: (1) 

Finish; (2) Grade; (3) Remelting; (4) 

Final Finishing; (5) Shape; and (6) Size. 

In calculating the net unit price, we 

used the reported gross unit price. We 

made adjustments for differences in 

packing costs between the two markets 

and for movement expenses in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. We deducted early 

payment discounts and movement 

expenses (inland freight and inland 

insurance). We adjusted for differences 

in the circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made 

these COS adjustments by deducting 

home market direct selling expenses 

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. 

Home market direct selling expenses 

consisted of imputed credit, 

administrative charges associated with 

sales, and financing. U.S. direct selling 

expenses consisted of imputed credit, 

bank charges, and administrative 

charges associated with sales, and 

financing. Finally, we made 

adjustments, where appropriate, for 

physical differences between the U.S. 

models and the home market models to 

which they were being compared. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the home market at the same 

level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as EP or CEP. The 

NV LOT is that of the starting–price 

sales in the home market or, when NV 

is based on CV, that of the sales from 

which we derive selling, general, and 

administrative expenses and profit. For 

CEP it is the level of the constructed 

sale from the exporter to an affiliated 

importer after the deductions required 

under section 772(d) of the Act. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. If the 

comparison–market sales are at a 

different LOT and the difference affects 

price comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison–market sales at the 

LOT of the export transaction, we make 

a LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if 

the NV level is more remote from the 

factory than the CEP level and there is 

no basis for determining whether the 

difference in the levels between NV and 

CEP affects price comparability, we 

adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act (the CEP–offset provision). See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 

1997). 

In implementing these principles in 

this review, we obtained information 

from SWG about the marketing stages 

involved in its U.S. and home market 

sales, including a description of its 

selling activities in the respective 

markets. Generally, if the reported levels 

of trade are the same in the home and 

U.S. markets, the functions and 

activities of the seller should be similar. 

Conversely, if a party reports differences 

in levels of trade, the functions and 

activities should be dissimilar. 

SWG reported one channel of 

distribution and one LOT in the home 

market contending that all home market 

sales were to end users. See SWG’s June 

9, 2006, Section A submission at A–12. 

SWG further contends it provided 

substantially the same level of customer 

support on its U.S. sale as it provided 

on its home market sales to end users. 

We examined the selling activities 

reported by SWG and determined that 

they are identical with respect to sales 

and marketing, inventory maintenance, 

warranties, and freight and delivery. For 

example, SWG did not incur freight and 

delivery or warehousing expenses in 

either market, and SWG performed 

similar activities with respect to sales 

and marketing and warranties. See 

SWG’s June 9, 2006, Section A 

submission at A–13 and Exhibit A–5. 

The Department has determined that we 

will find sales to be at the same LOT 

when the selling functions performed 

for each customer class are sufficiently 

similar. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). We 

find SWG performed virtually the same 

level of customer support services on its 

U.S. EP sale as it did on its home market 

sales. 

Therefore, based on our analysis of 

the selling functions performed on 

SWG’s EP sale in the United States, and 

its sales in the home market, we 

determine that the EP and the starting 

price of home market sales represent the 

same stage in the marketing process, 

and are thus at the same LOT. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 

no level of trade adjustment is 

appropriate for SWG. 

Currency Conversions 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773(a) of the Act, based on the exchange 

rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 

sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12767 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review we 

preliminarily find that a weighted–

average dumping margin of 0.00 percent 

exists for SWG for the period March 1, 

2005, through February 28, 2006. 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will be held 37 days after the 

date of publication, or the first business 

day thereafter, unless the Department 

alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.310(d). 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs or written comments no later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of new shipper 

review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 

written comments, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs and comments, 

may be filed no later than 5 days after 

the date of submission of case briefs and 

written comments. Parties who submit 

argument in these proceedings are 

requested to submit with the argument 

(1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting written comments should 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of the public version of 

any such comments on diskette. The 

Department will issue final results of 

this new shipper review, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues 

raised in any such written comments or 

at a hearing, within 90 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results of 

this review, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for the U.S. sale made by 

the respondent for which they have 

reported the importer of record and 

entered value, we have calculated an 

importer–specific assessment rate based 

on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the U.S. sale. 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 an 

importer–specific ad valorem rate based 

on the reported 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 

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 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the period 

of review produced by reviewed 

companies for which these companies 

did not know their 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). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit rate will 

be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this new shipper review 

for shipments of stainless steel bar from 

Germany entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. For 

subject merchandise produced and 

exported by SWG, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of this review, except if the rate 

is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, 

de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be 

zero. This cash deposit requirement, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4944 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–835] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from the Republic of Korea: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 19, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register its preliminary results of the 

changed circumstances review of the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on 

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils 

(‘‘SSSS’’) from the Republic of Korea 

(‘‘Korea’’). See Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from the 

Republic of Korea, 71 FR 75937 

(December 19, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). The Department preliminarily 

determined that: (1) Hyundai Steel 

Company (‘‘Hyundai’’) is the successor–

in-interest to INI Steel Company (‘‘INI’’), 

formerly Inchon Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.; 

and (2) upon publication of these final 

results of this review, INI’s current CVD 

cash deposit rate shall be applied to 

entries of subject merchandise made by 

Hyundai. We did not receive any 

comments on our preliminary results 

and have made no revisions to those 

results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

4014, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0395. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain stainless steel sheet and strip 

in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject sheet and strip is 

a flat–rolled product in coils that is 

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less 

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is 

annealed or otherwise heat treated and 

pickled or otherwise descaled. The 

subject sheet and strip may also be 

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

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) 

provided that it maintains the specific 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES