13086 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Notices 

1The Nucor Corporation, a domestic interested 

party, did not submit a case brief or a rebuttal brief. 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby the Denied Person 

acquires or attempts to acquire such 

ownership, possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from the Denied Person of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject to the 

Regulations with knowledge or reason 

to know that the item will be, or is 

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by the Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by the Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States. For purposes of this paragraph, 

servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification or 

testing. 

III. After notice and opportunity for 

comment as provided in section 766.23 

of the Regulations, any other person, 

firm, corporation, or business 

organization related to Subilia by 

affiliation, ownership, control, or 

position of responsibility in the conduct 

of trade or related services may also be 

made subject to the provisions of this 

Order. 

IV. This Order does not prohibit any 

export, reexport, or other transaction 

subject to the Regulations where the 

only items involved that are subject to 

the Regulations are the foreignproduced direct product of U.S.-origin 

technology. 

V. This Order is effective immediately 

and shall remain in effect until 

November 18, 2015. 

VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the 

Regulations, Subilia may file an appeal 

of this Order with the Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Industry and Security. 

The appeal must be filed within 45 days 

from the date of this Order and must 

comply with the provisions of Part 756 

of the Regulations. 

VII. A copy of this Order shall be 

delivered to Subilia. This Order shall be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

Eileen M. Albanese, 

Director, Office of Exporter Services. 

[FR Doc. 07–1333 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–816] 

Notice of Final Results of the Twelfth 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review for certain 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat 

products (CORE) from the Republic of 

Korea (Korea). See Certain Corrosion–

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Korea: Notice of Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 53370 (September 11, 

2006) (Preliminary Results). This review 

covers four manufacturers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise: Union Steel 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union); 

Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. 

(POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., 

Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, the POSCO 

Group); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); and 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu) 

(collectively, respondents). The period 

of review (POR) is August 1, 2004, 

through July 31, 2005. 

As a result of our analysis of the 

comments received, these final results 

differ from the preliminary results. For 

our final results, we have found that 

during the POR, Union and Dongbu sold 

subject merchandise at less than normal 

value (NV). We have also found that 

HYSCO and the POSCO Group did not 

make sales of the subject merchandise at 

less than NV (i.e., they have a zero or 

de minimis dumping margin). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska (Union), Preeti Tolani 

(Dongbu), Victoria Cho (the POSCO 

Group), and Joy Zhang (HYSCO), AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8362, (202) 482–

0395, (202) 482–5075, and (202) 482–

1168, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 11, 2006, the 

Department published the Preliminary 

Results. On January 3, 2007, the 

Department published the notice of 

extension of final results of the 

antidumping administrative review of 

CORE from Korea, extending the date 

for these final results to March 12, 2007. 

See Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from Korea: Extension of 

Time Limits for the Final Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 72 

FR 102 (January 3, 2007). 

Comments from Interested Parties 

We invited parties to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. On October 20, 

2006, Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal) 

and United States Steel Corporation (US 

Steel) filed case briefs concerning all 

respondents and all respondents filed a 

case brief.1 On October 31, 2006, Mittal 

filed a rebuttal brief concerning all 

respondents and U.S. Steel filed rebuttal 

briefs concerning Union, Dongbu, and 

POSCO. On October 31, 2006, all 

respondents filed a rebuttal brief. 

Scope of the Order 

This order covers cold–rolled (cold–

reduced) carbon steel flat–rolled carbon 

steel products, of rectangular shape, 

either clad, plated, or coated with 

corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc, 

aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron–based alloys, whether or not 

corrugated or painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating, in coils (whether or 

not in successively superimposed 

layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or 

greater, or in straight lengths which, if 

of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, 

are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 

which measures at least 10 times the 

thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 

millimeters or more are of a width 

which exceeds 150 millimeters and 

measures at least twice the thickness, as 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item numbers 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Notices 13087 

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in 

this order are corrosion–resistant flat–

rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross-section where such cross-section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from 

this order are flat–rolled steel products 

either plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (terne plate), or both chromium 

and chromium oxides (tin–free steel), 

whether or not painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating. Also excluded from 

this order are clad products in straight 

lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in 

composite thickness and of a width 

which exceeds 150 millimeters and 

measures at least twice the thickness. 

Also excluded from this order are 

certain clad stainless flat–rolled 

products, which are three–layered 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat–

rolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat–rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 

These HTSUS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written descriptions 

remain dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal brief by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, which is hereby adopted 

by this notice. A list of the issues which 

parties have raised, and to which we 

have responded in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, is attached to 

this notice as an Appendix. In addition, 

a complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

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

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average margins exist: 

Producer/Manufacturer Weighted–Average 

Margin 

Dongbu ......................... 2.07 % 

Union ............................ 1.45 % 

The POSCO Group ...... 0.35 % (de 

minimis) 

HYSCO ......................... 0.09 % (de 

minimis) 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b). The Department calculated 

importer–specific duty assessment rates 

on the basis of the ratio of the total 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the examined sales for that 

importer. Where the assessment rate is 

above de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to assess duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. The 

Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

15 days after publication of these final 

results. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of CORE from 

Korea entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of these final 

results, as provided by section 751(a) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act): (1) for companies covered by this 

review, the cash deposit rate will be the 

rate listed above; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies 

other than those covered by this review, 

the cash deposit rate will be the 

company–specific rate established for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the less–thanfair–value investigation, but the 

producer is, the cash deposit rate will be 

the rate established for the most recent 

period for the manufacturer of the 

subject merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the producer is a firm 

covered in this review, a prior review, 

or the investigation, the cash deposit 

rate will be 17.70 percent, the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate established in the less–

than-fair–value investigation. These 

deposit requirements shall remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties occurred and the 

subsequent increase in antidumping 

duties by the amount of antidumping 

and/or countervailing duties 

reimbursed. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also is the only reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX I 

List of Comments in the Accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

A. General Issues 

Comment 1: Model–Match Methodology 

and Laminated Products 

Comment 2: Treatment of CEP Offset 

Comment 3: Adjustments to U.S. Prices 

for Duty Drawback Paid in Korea 

Comment 4: Treatment of Indirect 

Selling Expenses incurred in Korea 

Comment 5: Treatment of Production 

Yields 

B. Company–Specific Issues 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. 

Comment 6: Treatment of All Sales 

Entered During the POR in Dongbu’s 

Margin Calculation 

Hyundai HYSCO 

Comment 7: Cash Deposit Rate for 

HYSCO 

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Comment 8: DINDIRSU Calculation 

Comment 9: Treatment of Union’s 

Indirect Selling Expense Ratio 

Comment 10: Treatment of Union’s 

Calculation of DKA’s Short Term 

Interest Rate 

Comment 11: Treatment of Union’s 

Overrun Sales in the Home Market 

Comment 12: Treatment of Union’s 

Home Market Sales of Non–Prime 

Merchandise in the Calculation of 

Normal Value 

Comment 13: Ministerial Error with 

respect to QTYCVNU Field 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
13088 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Notices 

1See Sunflag’s Request for New Shipper Review, 

dated December 29, 2006. 

2 In its December 29, 2006, Request for New 

Shipper Review, Sunflag provided information on 

its subsequent shipment. 

Comment 14: Ministerial Error 

Regarding Union’s Home Market Credit 

Expenses 

Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. and 

Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. 

Comment 15: Treatment of the POSCO’s 

Group Home Market Credit Expenses on 

Freight billed to its Customers 

Comment 16: The Department’s 

Calculation of the POSCO Group’s Sales 

Database Affecting Certain Conversion 

Factors 

Comment 17: Treatment of the POSCO 

Group’s Short–Term Interest Rate Used 

for U.S. Credit Expenses 

Comment 18: Treatment of the POSCO 

Group’s of Overun Sales in the Home 

Market 

Comment 19: The Department’s 

Calculation of the POSCO Group’s 

Certain Merchandise Sales in the Home 

Market 

Comment 20: Treatment of the POSCO 

Group’s Cash Deposit Instructions 

Comment 21: Treatment of POSAM’s 

(Pohang Steel America Corp.) Indirect 

Selling Expenses 

[FR Doc. E7–5041 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–808] 

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: 

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty New–Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 2007. 

SUMMARY: On December 29, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce received a 

request to conduct a new–shipper 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel wire rod from India. In 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are 

initiating a new–shipper review of 

Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., the 

exporter and producer that requested 

the new–shipper review. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten at 

(202) 482–1757 or (202) 482–1690, 

respectively, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 5, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice announcing the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel wire rod from India was published 

on December 1, 1993. See Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire 

Rods from India, 58 FR 63335 

(December 1, 1993). On December 29, 

2006, the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) received a timely request 

for a new–shipper review of the order 

from Sunflag Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 

(Sunflag). See section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.214(c). Sunflag is 

both the Indian producer and exporter 

of the subject merchandise to the United 

States on which its request for a new–

shipper review is based. As required by 

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

Sunflag certified that it is a producer 

and exporter of the subject merchandise, 

that it did not export stainless steel wire 

rod to the United States during the 

period of investigation (POI) (July 1, 

1992, through December 31, 1992), and 

that, since the initiation of the 

investigation, it has never been affiliated 

with any exporter or producer that 

exported stainless steel wire rod to the 

United States during the POI.1

In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), the company 

submitted documentation establishing 

the following: (1) the date on which it 

first shipped the subject merchandise 

for export to the United States; (2) the 

volume of its first shipment and its 

subsequent shipment;2 and (3) the date 

of its first sale to an unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. 

On January 31, 2007, the Department 

postponed its decision regarding 

whether to initiate the new–shipper 

review because, based upon its routine 

examination of Customs and Border 

Protection entry data, it was not clear 

whether the merchandise exported by 

Sunflag to the United States qualified as 

subject merchandise. See Memorandum 

from Catherine Cartsos through Minoo 

Hatten to the File, New–Shipper Review 

of Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: 

Customs and Border Protection Entry 

Data, dated January 31, 2007. Under 19 

CFR 351.302(b), the Department may 

extend any time limit established by its 

regulations for good cause unless 

expressly precluded by the statute. See 

Letter from Laurie Parkhill to Mr. M.D. 

Ghumare, General Manager of Exports 

for Sunflag, dated January 31, 2007. The 

status of the Sunflag entries is no longer 

at issue because the Department has 

determined that the merchandise 

exported by Sunflag to the United States 

qualifies as subject merchandise. See 

Memorandum from Catherine Cartsos 

through Minoo Hatten to the File, New–

Shipper Review of Stainless Steel Wire 

Rod from India: Customs and Border 

Protection Entry Data and Documents, 

dated March 13, 2007. 

Initiation of New–Shipper Review 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2) and (d)(1), we find that 

Sunflag’s request meets the threshold 

requirements for initiation of a new–

shipper review. See March 13, 2007, 

Memorandum to the File through Laurie 

Parkhill, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 5, from the team regarding the 

new–shipper review initiation checklist. 

Accordingly, we are initiating a new–

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on stainless steel wire rod from 

India for shipments produced and 

exported by Sunflag. The period of 

review is December 1, 2005, through 

November 30, 2006. See 19 CFR 

351.214(g)(1)(i)(A). We intend to issue 

the preliminary results of this new–

shipper review no later than 180 days 

after initiation of this review. See 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.214(i). We intend to issue the 

final results of this review no later than 

90 days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are issued. See 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.214(i). On August 17, 2006, the 

Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) 

was signed into law. Section 1632 of 

H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the 

authority of the Department to instruct 

Customs and Border Protection to 

collect a bond or other security in lieu 

of a cash deposit in new–shipper 

reviews. Therefore, the posting of a 

bond under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e) in lieu 

of a cash deposit is not available in this 

case. Importers of subject merchandise 

manufactured and exported by Sunflag 

must continue to pay a cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties on each 

entry of subject merchandise at the 

current all–others rate of 48.80 percent. 

Interested parties that need access to 

proprietary information in this new–

shipper review should submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 

351.306. 

This initiation and notice are in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(d), and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES