15106 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 

1Firth Rixson Ltd. is the parent company of 

Enpar, the respondent in this review, which was 

formerly known as Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0408 or at (202) 

482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain hot–

rolled carbon steel flat products from 

the Netherlands, (71 FR 64240). On 

November 30, 2006, we received 

requests from USSC, Mittal and Nucor 

to conduct an administrative review of 

Corus’ sales of certain hot–rolled carbon 

steel flat products to the United States 

during the period November 1, 2005, 

through October 31, 2006. On December 

27, 2006, the Department initiated an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain hot–

rolled carbon steel flat products from 

the Netherlands for the period 

November 1, 2005 through October 31, 

2006, in order to determine whether 

merchandise imported into the United 

States was sold at less than fair value by 

Corus. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 

2006). 

On February 27, 2007 USSC Mittal 

and Nucor withdrew their requests for 

review. On March 9, 2007, Corus 

submitted comments in regards to the 

withdrawal requests. These comments 

are summarized and addressed in an 

accompanying memorandum, which is 

being released in conjunction with this 

notice. See memorandum to Richard 

Weible, Office Director, through Robert 

James, Program Manager, from David 

Cordell, entitled ‘‘Comments on 

Domestic Interested Parties Requests for 

Withdrawal.’’

Rescission of Review 

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provide that 

the Department will rescind an 

administrative review if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request for review within 90 days of the 

date of publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review, or 

withdraws at a later date if the 

Department determines that it is 

reasonable to extend the time limit for 

withdrawing the request. As all parties 

that requested this review have 

withdrawn those requests within 90 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the requested 

review, this review is rescinded. The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions to Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after 

the date of the publication of this notice. 

The Department will direct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties for Corus 

Staal BVat the cash deposit rate in effect 

on the date of entry for entries during 

the period November 1, 2005, through 

October 31, 2006. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under section 351.402(f) of the 

Department’s regulations 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 assumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with section 351.305(a)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations. 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. 

This notice is in accordance with 

section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: March 23, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5864 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–412–822] 

Stainless Steel Bar from the United 

Kingdom: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a timely 

request by Firth Rixson Ltd., the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar from the United Kingdom with 

respect to Enpar Special Alloys Ltd. 

(Enpar). The period of review (POR) is 

March 1, 2005, through February 28, 

2006. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

have been made below normal value 

(NV). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of 

administrative review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. 

In addition, the Department has 

received information sufficient to 

warrant a successor–in-interest analysis 

in this administrative review. Based on 

this information, we preliminarily 

determine that Enpar is the successor–

in-interest to Firth Rixson Special Steels 

Ltd. for purposes of determining 

antidumping duty liability. Interested 

parties are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4929 or (202) 482–

4007, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 7, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar from the United Kingdom. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless 

Steel Bar from the United Kingdom, 67 

FR 10381 (March 7, 2002). 

In response to timely requests by 

manufacturer/exporters, Firth Rixson 

Ltd.1 and Corus Engineering Steels 

(Corus), the Department published a 

notice of initiation of an administrative 

review with respect to these companies. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 25145 (April 28, 2006). 

The POR is March 1, 2005, through 

February 28, 2006. 

On April 25, 2006, we issued 

antidumping duty questionnaires to the 

above–mentioned companies. On May 

16, 2006, Enpar requested that the 

Department allow it to limit its 

reporting of home market sales and cost 

of production information in this 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 15107 

review. In a letter dated May 26, 2006, 

we permitted Enpar to limit its reporting 

of home market sales to the six-month 

contemporaneous window period of 

October 1, 2005, through March 31, 

2006, and to certain grades of stainless 

steel bar, as long as Enpar reported 

complete sales and cost information for 

sales of these grades as well as for sales 

of the five most similar grades. In 

addition, we permitted Enpar to limit its 

cost of production reporting to these 

same grades, but we required that cost 

information be reported for the entire 

POR. 

On June 1, 2006, Corus timely 

withdrew its request for an 

administrative review of its sales during 

the above–referenced period. 

Accordingly, we published a notice 

rescinding the review with respect to 

this company. See Stainless Steel Bar 

from the United Kingdom: Notice of 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 34895 

(June 16, 2006). 

On June 23, 2006, we received Enpar’s 

response to both the sales and cost of 

production portions of the antidumping 

questionnaire. We issued a 

supplemental questionnaire (sales) to 

Enpar on August 8, 2006, to which 

Enpar responded on September 8, 2006. 

We issued supplemental questionnaires 

(cost) on July 24 and September 18, 

2006, and received responses on 

September 8 and October 12, 2006, 

respectively. 

On October 16, 2006, we extended the 

time limit for the preliminary results in 

this review by 120 days. See Stainless 

Steel Bar from the United Kingdom: 

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 60691 

(October 16, 2006). 

We issued additional supplemental 

questionnaires (cost) on October 31 and 

December 19, 2006, and received 

responses on November 28, 2006 and 

January 5, 2007, respectively. 

During the periods November 13 - 16, 

2006, and February 22 - March 2, 2007, 

we conducted the sales and cost 

verifications of the questionnaire 

responses of Enpar. 

Scope of the Order 

For 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 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 stainless steel bar 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 this 

order is dispositive. 

Successor–In-Interest Analysis 

In accordance with section 751(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), the Department is conducting a 

successor–in-interest analysis to 

determine whether Enpar is the 

successor–in-interest to Firth Rixson 

Special Steels Ltd. for purposes of 

determining antidumping liability with 

respect to the subject merchandise. In 

making such a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from 

Japan, 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002) 

(Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan); 

Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 

(May 13, 1992) (Canadian Brass). While 

no individual factor or combination of 

these factors will necessarily provide a 

dispositive indication, the Department 

will generally consider the new 

company to be the successor to the 

previous company if its resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See, e.g., 

Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan; 

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994); 

Canadian Brass; Fresh and Chilled 

Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Initiation 

and Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 63 FR 50880 

(September 23, 1998) (unchanged in 

final results, Fresh and Chilled Atlantic 

Salmon From Norway; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 

(March 1, 1999)). Thus, if the evidence 

demonstrates that, with respect to the 

production and sale of the subject 

merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the former company, the Department 

will generally accord the new company 

the same antidumping duty treatment as 

its predecessor. 

We preliminarily determine that 

Enpar is the successor–in-interest to 

Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. Enpar 

explained in its questionnaire response 

that Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. was 

a subsidiary of the U.K.-based Firth 

Rixson Ltd. Firth Rixson Special Steels 

Ltd. and two other subsidiaries of the 

U.K.-based Firth Rixson Ltd., T.W. 

Pearson and Enpar, were combined in 

2003 to form Enpar. Enpar has the same 

company registration number as that of 

Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd., the 

registered office is the same for both 

companies, and three of Enpar’s four 

directors were also directors of Firth 

Rixson Special Steels Ltd. We 

confirmed at verification that Enpar’s 

business structure is the same as that of 

Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd. 

Although certain upgrades have been 

made to the production facility, the 

supplier and customer bases and 

relationships remain the same. In fact, 

the only real change is the name of the 

subsidiary. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find that Enpar should 

receive the same antidumping duty 

treatment with respect to stainless steel 

bar as the former Firth Rixson Special 

Steels Ltd. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of 

stainless steel bar by Enpar to the 

United States were made below NV, we 

compared export price (EP) to the NV, 

as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

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

Act, we compared the EPs of individual 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
15108 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 

2Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), 

we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling expenses, 

general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, and 

profit for CV, where possible. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 

63 FR 2664 (January 16, 1998) (unchanged in final 

determination, Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic 

Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 31411 (June 9, 1998)). 

U.S. transactions to the weighted–

average NV of the foreign like product 

where there were sales made in the 

ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’

section below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by the respondent covered by 

the description in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Order’’ section, above, to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.414(e)(2), we compared Enpar’s U.S. 

sales to sales made in the home market 

within the contemporaneous window 

period, which extends from three 

months prior to the U.S. sale until two 

months after the sale. Where there were 

no sales of identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

sales of the most similar foreign like 

product made in the ordinary course of 

trade. In making the product 

comparisons, we matched foreign like 

products based on the physical 

characteristics reported by the 

respondents in the following order: 

finish, grade, remelting, type of final 

finishing operation, shape and size. 

Export Price 

We used EP methodology, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, because the subject merchandise 

was sold directly by Enpar to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation and 

constructed export price (CEP) 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated. We based EP on packed 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. 

Enpar reported its U.S. sales on a 

delivered duty paid basis. We made 

deductions from the starting price, 

where appropriate, for foreign inland 

freight, international freight, foreign 

inland and marine insurance, foreign 

and U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. 

inland freight and U.S. duty, in 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.402. 

Normal Value 

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 

Enpar’s volume of home market sales of 

the foreign like product to the volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, 

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) 

of the Act. 

Because Enpar’s aggregate volume of 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product was greater than five percent of 

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 

subject merchandise, we determined 

that its home market was viable. 

Level of Trade 

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

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) 

as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

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

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id.; See also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order 

to determine whether the comparison 

sales were at different stages in the 

marketing process than the U.S. sales, 

we reviewed the distribution system in 

each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), including selling 

activities, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),2 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. See Micron 

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

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

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sales 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, and where the 

difference affects price comparability, 

we make an LOT adjustment under 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 

for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is 

more remote from the factory than the 

CEP LOT and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from Enpar 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making the reported foreign market 

and U.S. sales, including a description 

of the selling activities performed for 

each channel of distribution. Enpar 

reported that it made EP sales in the 

U.S. market through a single 

distribution channel (i.e., sales to end 

users through a commission agent). We 

examined the selling activities Enpar 

performed during the POR for this 

channel, and based on verification, we 

found that Enpar performed the 

following selling activities for its U.S. 

sales: sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery, and payment of commissions. 

Because all sales in the United States 

are made through a single distribution 

channel, we preliminarily determine 

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

Enpar reported that it made sales to 

the home market through two channels 

of distribution (i.e., sales to service 

centers and sales to end users). We 

examined the selling activities Enpar 

performed during the POR for both 

channels, and based on verification, we 

found that the only selling activities 

Enpar performed for its home market 

sales were sales and marketing and 

freight and delivery. Because Enpar 

performed identical selling functions for 

both channels of distribution, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the home market. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that, 

with the exception of commission 

payments in the U.S. market, the core 

selling activities performed for the U.S. 

and the home markets are identical. As 

there were no other differences in 

selling activities between the two 

markets, we preliminarily determine 

that sales to the U.S. and home markets 

during the POR were made at the same 

LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment 

is warranted. 

Cost of Production Analysis 

Because we assigned Firth Rixson 

Special Steels Ltd. a margin based on 

total adverse facts available in the first 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 15109 

3We required that Firth Rixson Special Steels 

Ltd. provide a response to Section D of the 

questionnaire in the first administrative review. 

4No interested party requested a review of Firth 

Rixson Special Steels Ltd. for the second and third 

review periods. 

administrative review,3 which was the 

most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding as of the publication date of 

the initiation of this review,4 there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that Enpar, which we have preliminarily 

determined is the successor–in-interest 

to Firth Rixson Special Steels Ltd., 

made sales in the home market at prices 

below the cost of producing the 

merchandise in the current review 

period. Accordingly, we required that 

Firth Rixson provide a response to 

Section D of the questionnaire, in 

accordance with our normal practice. 

A. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated Enpar’s cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’) based on the sum of 

its costs of materials and conversion, 

plus amounts for general and 

administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses and 

interest expenses. See ‘‘Test of 

Comparison Market Sales Prices’’

section below for treatment of home 

market selling expenses. 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by the respondent in its 

most recent supplemental section D 

questionnaire response for the COP 

calculation, except in the following 

instances: 

1. Based on verification findings, for 

grades 316 and 304, we recalculated the 

average material cost using all grade 316 

and 304 input materials consumed, 

rather than using only selected grade 

316 and 304 input materials consumed, 

as reported by Enpar. In addition, when 

recalculating the average material cost, 

we weighted input prices using relative 

consumption quantities rather than 

relative purchase quantities. We 

increased the reported material costs for 

grade 316 and 304 products by the 

difference between the reported cost 

and the revised cost we calculated for 

these products. For all other grades, we 

increased the reported material costs by 

the average difference between the 

reported costs and revised costs for 

grades 316 and 304. 

2. Based on verification findings, we 

reallocated conversion costs for selected 

products based on work order times for 

each process, as opposed to the standard 

times used by Enpar. As the work order 

times were used by Enpar to develop its 

actual hourly processing rates, we deem 

it appropriate to apply the actual hourly 

processing rates to the same work order 

times. For all other products, we 

increased the reported variable and 

fixed conversion costs by the average 

difference between the reported and 

revised costs of the selected products. 

3. Based on verification findings, we 

adjusted the G&A ratio to exclude the 

offsets for interest income and foreign 

exchange gains. In addition, we 

calculated the G&A ratio as a percentage 

of cost of goods sold, rather than as a 

percentage of material costs, as reported 

by Enpar. 

Our revisions to Enpar’s COP data are 

discussed in the Memorandum from 

Joseph Welton, Senior Accountant, to 

Neal Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Enpar Special 

Alloys Limited (Enpar),’’ dated March 

22, 2007. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product–specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weighted–

average COP to the home market sales 

of the foreign like product, as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order 

to determine whether the sale prices 

were below the COP. For purposes of 

this comparison, we used COP exclusive 

of selling and packing expenses. The 

prices were inclusive of billing 

adjustments and exclusive of any 

applicable movement charges, discounts 

and rebates, and direct and indirect 

selling expenses and packing expenses, 

revised where appropriate. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act: (1) Whether, within an extended 

period of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities; and (2) whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time in 

the normal course of trade. Where less 

than 20 percent of a respondent’s home 

market sales of a given product are at 

prices less than the COP, we do not 

disregard any below–cost sales of that 

product, because we determine that in 

such instances the below–cost sales 

were not made within an extended 

period of time and in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product are at prices less than the COP, 

we disregard the below–cost sales 

because: (1) They were made within an 

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial 

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) 

based on our comparison of prices to the 

weighted–average COPs for the POR, 

they were at prices which would not 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time, in 

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

the Act. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of Enpar’s home 

market sales were at prices less than the 

COP and, in addition, such sales did not 

provide for the recovery of costs within 

a reasonable period of time. We 

therefore excluded these sales and used 

the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

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

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We based NV for Enpar on ex–works 

or CIF prices to unaffiliated customers 

in the home market. Where appropriate, 

we made adjustments to the starting 

price for billing adjustments. We made 

deductions, where appropriate, from the 

starting price for discounts and rebates, 

foreign inland freight, and insurance 

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

of the Act. Based on our sales 

verification findings, we made minor 

revisions to the billing adjustments and 

foreign inland freight expenses reported 

for certain home market sales. See the 

March 22, 2007, memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results for Enpar Special 

Alloys Ltd.’’ (‘‘Enpar Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum’’). 

We made adjustments for differences 

in costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise in accordance with section 

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

351.411. In addition, we made 

adjustments under section 

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

351.410 for differences in circumstances 

of sale (‘‘COS’’) for imputed credit 

expenses. Using interest rate 

information provided in Enpar’s 

questionnaire response, we recalculated 

U.S. and home market imputed credit 

expenses using the average U.S. and 

U.K. short–term interest rates for the 

POR. See Enpar Preliminary Calculation 

Memorandum. As commissions were 

paid in the U.S. market but not in the 

home market, we made a downward 

adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the 

amount of commission paid in the U.S. 

market, or (2) the amount of indirect 

selling expenses incurred in the home 

market. We revised the reported indirect 

selling expenses to reflect verification 

findings. See Enpar Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum. We also 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs, in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
15110 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 

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

and (B) of the Act. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions 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 certified 

by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted–average dumping margin for 

the period March 1, 2005, through 

February 28, 2006, is as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent 

Margin 

Enpar Special Alloys Ltd. (formerly Firth Rixson Special 

Steels Ltd.) .............................. 33.87 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room B–099, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the respective 

case briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit written 

comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless the time 

period is extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice (see 19 CFR 351.309(c)), and 

rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments 

raised in case briefs, are to be submitted 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a 

brief summary of the argument. Case 

and rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written briefs, not 

later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions for the 

companies subject to this review to CBP 

15 days after the date of publication of 

the final results of this review. 

We will calculate importer–specific 

ad valorem duty assessment rates based 

on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the examined sales for that 

importer. We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer–specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis (i.e., at or 

above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

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

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

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

than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1). The final results of this 

review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by any 

company included in the final results of 

review for which the reviewed company 

did not know that the merchandise it 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the 

cash deposit rate for the company listed 

above will be that established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 

therefore, de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; 2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not 

participating in this review, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; 3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, or the 

original less–than-fair–value 

investigation (LTFV) investigation, but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent period for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and 4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 4.48 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. 

These requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(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. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5860 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice 

of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES