Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 25253 

results are published. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend these deadlines to 

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, 

respectively. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

The deadline for the preliminary 

results of this administrative review is 

currently May 3, 2007. The Department 

determines that completion of the 

preliminary results within the statutory 

time period is not practicable. The 

Department issued a supplemental sales 

and cost questionnaire to respondent 

V&M do Brasil, S.A. (‘‘VMB’’) to gather 

information with respect to how VMB 

reported certain production costs and 

calculated its interest expense ratio on 

April 18, 2007, and the supplemental 

questionnaire response is currently due 

on May 2, 2007. The Department 

requires additional time to review and 

analyze VMB’s supplemental 

questionnaire response, and to issue 

additional supplemental cost 

questionnaires, if necessary. 

Therefore, given the additional time 

needed to conduct complete analyses 

for this administrative review, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act, the Department is extending the 

time limit for completion of these 

preliminary results by an additional 60 

days to no later than July 2, 2007. The 

final results continue to be due no later 

than 120 days after the publication of 

the notice of the preliminary results. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 30, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8586 Filed 5–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–489–807) 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 

Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Review and 

Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review and a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on certain steel concrete 

reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey for 

the period April 1, 2005, through March 

31, 2006. We have preliminarily 

determined that certain of the 

producers/exporters have made sales 

below normal value (NV). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in the 

final results of these reviews, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. 

We also have preliminarily 

determined to revoke the antidumping 

duty order with respect to Colakoglu 

Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret 

A.S. (collectively ‘‘Colakoglu’’) and Diler 

Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., 

Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm 

Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. 

(collectively, ‘‘Diler’’). 

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: May 4, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina 

Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration–Room B099, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0656 or (202) 482–0498, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 3, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review’’ of the 

antidumping duty order on rebar from 

Turkey. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 16549 (Apr. 3, 2006). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), on April 28, 2006, the 

Department received requests to 

conduct an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on rebar from 

Turkey from the following producers/ 

exporters of rebar: Colakoglu; Diler; 

Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. 

and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. 

(collectively ‘‘Ekinciler’’); Habas Sinai ve 

Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. 

(Habas); and Kaptan Demir Celik 

Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. and Kaptan 

Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. 

(collectively ‘‘Kaptan’’). As part of their 

requests, Colakoglu and Diler also 

requested that the Department revoke 

the antidumping order with regard to 

them, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.222(b). Also, on April 28, 2006, the 

domestic interested parties, Nucor 

Corporation, Gerdau AmeriSteel 

Corporation and Commercial Metals 

Company, requested an administrative 

review for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, 

and Habas pursuant to section 751(a) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1). Further, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.214(b), on April 28, 

2006, the Department received a request 

to conduct a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on rebar from 

Turkey from Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S. 

and Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve 

Pazarlama A.S. (collectively ‘‘Kroman’’). 

In May 2006, the Department initiated 

an administrative review for Colakoglu, 

Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kaptan and 

a new shipper review for Kroman, and 

we issued antidumping duty 

questionnaires to these companies. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006), and 

Notice of Initiation of New Shipper 

Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 

71 FR 30383 (May 26, 2006). On May 

22, 2006, Kroman agreed in writing to 

waive the time limits in order for the 

Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(j)(3), to conduct the new 

shipper review concurrently with the 

administrative review. 

In July 2006, we received responses to 

sections A through D of the 

questionnaire from Colakoglu, Diler, 

Ekinciler, and Habas, and to sections A 

through C of the questionnaire from 

Kaptan and Kroman. 

Also in July 2006, the domestic 

interested parties requested that the 

Department initiate sales–below-cost 

investigations of Kaptan and Kroman. 

We initiated sales–below-cost 

investigations for these companies in 

August 2006. See the Memoranda to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, from The Team, 

entitled, ‘‘Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales 

Below the Cost of Production for Kaptan 

Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret A.S. 

and Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret Ve 

Nakliyat A.S.’’ (‘‘Kaptan Cost Allegation 

Memo’’) and ‘‘Petitioners’ Allegation of 

Sales Below the Cost of Production for 

Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S. and 

Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama 

A.S.’’ (‘‘Kroman Cost Allegation Memo’’), 

dated August 11, 2006. 

In August 2006, we issued 

supplemental sales questionnaires to 

each of the six respondent companies. 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
25254 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 

We received responses to these 

questionnaires in August and September 

2006. 

In September 2006, we conducted an 

on–site verification of Kroman’s sales 

response in Turkey. Also during this 

month, we received Kaptan’s and 

Kroman’s responses to section D of the 

questionnaire, and we issued 

supplemental cost questionnaires to 

Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas. 

We received responses to the 

supplemental cost questionnaires from 

Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas 

in September and October 2006. 

In October 2006, we issued 

supplemental cost questionnaires to 

Kaptan and Kroman. Also during this 

month, the Department postponed the 

preliminary results of this review until 

no later than April 30, 2007. See Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 

Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time 

Limits for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Review, 71 FR 

62418 (Oct. 25, 2006). 

We received a supplemental cost 

questionnaire response from Kaptan and 

Kroman in November 2006. 

From November 2006 through January 

2007, we issued additional 

supplemental questionnaires to each of 

the respondents. We received responses 

to these questionnaires from November 

2006 through February 2007. 

In February 2007, the domestic 

interested parties alleged that each of 

the rebar producers involved in both the 

administrative and new shipper reviews 

was engaged in anti–competitive 

practices in the home and U.S. markets 

during the period of review (POR), as 

evidenced by a 2005 finding by the 

Turkish Government Competition Board 

(Competition Board). As a result, the 

domestic industry requested that the 

Department inter alia: 1) reject the 

responses by the producers in the 

administrative review and base the 

preliminary dumping margins on 

adverse facts available (AFA), and 2) 

determine that Kroman is affiliated with 

all Turkish rebar producers named in 

the Competition Board report and 

rescind the initiation of the new shipper 

review for this company. In February 

and March 2007, we received comments 

from the respondents on these 

allegations, as well as reply comments 

from the domestic industry. For further 

discussion, see the ‘‘Turkish 

Government Competition Board 

Finding’’ section below. 

In March 2007, we issued additional 

supplemental cost questionnaires to 

Colakoglu and Ekinciler, as well as 

questionnaires to all interested parties 

regarding the allegations noted above. 

We received responses to these 

questionnaires in April 2007. 

Also in April 2007, the domestic 

interested parties submitted a second 

report by the Competition Board, which 

they allege: 1) demonstrates that several 

of the respondents were engaged in 

close supplier relationships; and, 2) 

should be relied upon by the 

Department to make a finding that the 

respondents in this proceeding are 

affiliated. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

all stock deformed steel concrete 

reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths 

and coils. This includes all hot–rolled 

deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, 

rail steel, axle steel, or low–alloy steel. 

It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii) 

rebar that a processor has further 

worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated 

rebar. Deformed rebar is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the scope of these 

proceedings is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The POR is April 1, 2005, through 

March 31, 2006. 

Notice of Intent To Revoke, in Part 

As noted above, on April 28, 2006, 

Colakoglu and Diler requested 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to their sales of 

subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.222(b). These requests were 

accompanied by certifications that 

Colakolgu and Diler have sold the 

subject merchandise at not less than NV 

during the current POR and will not sell 

the merchandise at less than NV in the 

future. Colakoglu and Diler further 

certified that they sold subject 

merchandise to the United States in 

commercial quantities for a period of at 

least three consecutive years. Colakoglu 

and Diler also agreed to immediate 

reinstatement of the antidumping duty 

order, as long as any exporter or 

producer is subject to the order, if the 

Department concludes that, subsequent 

to the revocation, they sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV. 

Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, 

the Department ‘‘may revoke, in whole 

or in part’’ an antidumping duty order 

upon completion of a review under 

section 751(a) of the Act. While 

Congress has not specified the 

procedures the Department must follow 

in revoking an order, the Department 

has developed a procedure for 

revocation that is described in 19 CFR 

351.222. Sections 351.222(b)(1)(A) and 

351.222(b)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations explain that the Secretary 

may revoke an antidumping duty order 

in part if the Secretary concludes, inter 

alia, that one or more exporters or 

producers covered by the order have 

sold the subject merchandise in 

commercial quantities at not less than 

NV for a period of at least three 

consecutive years. See Notice of Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and 

Determination Not to Revoke the 

Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet 

and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 

742, 743 (Jan. 6, 2000). 

We preliminarily determine that the 

requests from Colakoglu and Diler meet 

all of the criteria under 19 CFR 

351.222(b). With regard to the criteria of 

subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our 

preliminary margin calculations show 

that Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar at 

not less than NV during the current 

review period. See the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the Review’’ section below. In 

addition, Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar 

at not less than NV in the two previous 

administrative reviews in which they 

were involved (i.e., their dumping 

margins were zero or de minimis). See 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 

From Turkey; Final Results and 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 

65082 (Nov. 7, 2006), unchanged in 

Notice of Amended Final Results and 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review in Part: Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 

Turkey, 71 FR 75711 (Dec. 18, 2006); 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 

From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, and Determination To 

Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 

2005). 

Based on our examination of the sales 

data submitted by Colakoglu and Diler, 

we preliminarily determine that they 

sold the subject merchandise in the 

United States in commercial quantities 

in each of the consecutive years cited by 

Colakoglu and Diler to support their 

requests for revocation. See the 

Memoranda to the file from Brianne 

Riker entitled ‘‘Analysis of Colakoglu 

Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret 

A.S.’s Commercial Quantities for 

Request for Revocation’’ and ‘‘Analysis 

of Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve 

Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi 

ve Turizm Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis 

Ticaret A.S.’s Commercial Quantities for 

Request for Revocation,’’ dated April 30, 

2007. Thus, we preliminarily find that 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 25255 

Colakoglu and Diler had zero or de 

minimis dumping margins for their last 

three administrative reviews and sold 

subject merchandise in commercial 

quantities in each of these years. Also, 

we preliminarily determine that the 

application of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to Colakoglu and 

Diler is no longer warranted for the 

following reasons: 1) the companies had 

zero or de minimis margins for a period 

of at least three consecutive years; 2) the 

companies have agreed to immediate 

reinstatement of the order if the 

Department finds that they have 

resumed making sales at less than NV; 

and, 3) the continued application of the 

order is not otherwise necessary to 

offset dumping. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that Colakoglu 

and Diler qualify for revocation of the 

order on rebar pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2), and that the order with 

respect to merchandise produced and 

exported by Colakolgu and Diler should 

be revoked. If these preliminary findings 

are affirmed in our final results, we will 

revoke this order in part for Colakoglu 

and Diler and, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.222(f)(3), terminate the 

suspension of liquidation for any of the 

merchandise in question that is entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after April 1, 2006, 

and instruct CBP to refund any cash 

deposits for such entries. 

We note that the domestic interested 

parties have alleged that the 

Competition Board finding should 

render Colakoglu and Diler ineligible for 

revocation. The Department is currently 

considering this argument and will 

make a decision on it no later than the 

final results. For further discussion, see 

the ‘‘Turkish Government Competition 

Board Finding’’ section below. 

Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Kroman 

For the reasons stated below, we 

preliminarily find that Kroman’s 

reported U.S. sale during the POR is a 

bona fide sale, as required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality 

of the facts on the record. Specifically, 

we find that the price reported for 

Kroman’s rebar sale was similar to the 

average unit value of U.S. imports of 

comparable rebar from Turkey during 

the POR. We also find that the quantity 

of the sale was within the range of 

shipment sizes of comparable goods 

exported from Turkey during the POR. 

See the Memorandum from Brianne 

Riker to the File, entitled ‘‘Placing 

Information from the 2005–2006 

Administrative Review on Rebar from 

Turkey on the Record of the New 

Shipper Review on Rebar from Turkey 

for Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.,’’ dated 

April 30, 2007. Finally, we considered 

whether the importer involved in this 

transaction is an actual commercial 

entity, and we found no reason to doubt 

the legitimacy of the importing party 

involved in this new shipper review. 

See the Memorandum to James Maeder 

from Irina Itkin entitled, ‘‘Analysis of 

Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.’s Bona Fides 

As A New Shipper in the New Shipper 

Review of Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,’’ dated 

April 30, 2007, for further discussion of 

our price and quantity analysis. 

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned 

above, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Kroman’s sole U.S. sale 

during the POR was a bona fide 

commercial transaction. We note that 

the domestic interested parties have 

alleged that: 1) Kroman’s U.S. sale is not 

a bona fide transaction because the price 

for this sale was not competitively set; 

and/or, 2) Kroman is not entitled to a 

new shipper review because it is 

affiliated with other respondents in this 

case. The Department is currently 

considering these arguments and, when 

we make a determination with regard to 

the Competition Board’s reports, we will 

incorporate our analysis on this point 

into that determination. For further 

discussion, see the ‘‘Turkish 

Government Competition Board 

Finding’’ section below. 

Turkish Government Competition 

Board Finding 

On February 21 and 23, 2007, the 

domestic interested parties submitted a 

report by the Turkish Government 

Competition Board regarding the 

Turkish steel industry in the 

administrative review and new shipper 

review, respectively. The domestic 

interested parties argue that this report 

demonstrates that the respondents 

engaged in anti–competitive behavior 

prior to and during the POR by 

colluding with each other to manipulate 

home market and export prices and to 

suppress costs. The domestic interested 

parties assert that the Department 

should: (1) find that a particular market 

situation, a fictitious market, or sales 

outside the course of ordinary trade 

exist and not use home market sales as 

a basis for NV; (2) not revoke Colakoglu 

and Diler from the order due to 

collusive behavior; (3) find that all U.S. 

sales are not bona fide; and (4) collapse 

all Turkish rebar producers into a single 

entity and find that Kroman does not 

qualify as a new shipper because of 

affiliation with other respondents. The 

domestic parties further contend that 

the Department should, as a result, 

rescind the initiation of the new shipper 

review for Kroman and assign 

preliminary dumping margins to each of 

the remaining producers using AFA. 

In addition, on April 9, 2007, the 

domestic interested parties submitted a 

second report by the Competition Board, 

which they allege: 1) demonstrates that 

several of the respondents were engaged 

in close supplier relationships; and 2) 

should be relied upon by the 

Department to make a finding that the 

respondents in this proceeding are 

affiliated. 

The respondents in this case have 

objected to the Department’s acceptance 

of these submissions because, they 

argue: (1) it is inappropriate to consider 

antitrust findings in the context of a 

dumping proceeding; (2) the 

Competition Board’s ruling is not final, 

as it is under appeal in the Turkish 

judicial system; (3) the Competition 

Board’s decision and evidence should 

not be considered in the current POR 

because it relates to a prior period of 

time; and/or (4) the small fines that the 

Competition Board levied indicate that 

it did not believe that the anti– 

competitive behavior was significant. 

The respondents did not submit 

arguments regarding the domestic 

interested parties’ April 9, 2007, 

submission. 

As a threshold matter, we have 

concluded that it is appropriate to 

accept the Competition Board’s reports 

on the administrative record of these 

proceedings. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.104(a), the Competition Board’s 

reports are new factual information 

which are, at minimum, of concern to 

these proceedings in that they address 

alleged collusive and anti–competitive 

behavior among members of the Turkish 

steel industry, of which rebar producers 

are a significant part, that may have 

influenced the costs and market prices 

of the respondents in these reviews. 

Accordingly, the Department acted 

consistently with its authority in 

accepting this information and 

considering it for purposes of the 

ongoing administrative and new shipper 

reviews. See 19 CFR 351.104(a) and 

351.301(c)(2) (authorizing the 

Department to consider information 

provided during the proceeding and 

allowing it to extend the time within 

which information may be provided 

during a review if it considers such an 

extension of time is warranted). 

The Department has been unable to 

fully address this issue in these 

preliminary results because the 

Competition Board’s reports were 

placed on the record late in the 

proceedings, and there has been a large 

amount of argument submitted by both 

sides on the matter. Furthermore, the 

domestic interested parties submitted 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
25256 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 

new arguments on this point not long 

before issuance of these preliminary 

results. Accordingly, the Department 

has not yet had the opportunity to fully 

review and address all issues with 

regard to this matter. Subsequent to 

publication of the preliminary results, 

the Department will provide to the 

interested parties its preliminary 

conclusions on these issues and give 

them an opportunity to comment on 

those conclusions before reaching final 

conclusions and publishing the final 

results of these administrative and new 

shipper reviews. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of rebar 

from Turkey were made in the United 

States at less than NV, we compared the 

export price (EP) to the NV, as described 

in the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this 

notice. When making comparisons in 

accordance with section 771(16) of the 

Act, we considered all products sold in 

the home market as described in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this 

notice, above, that were in the ordinary 

course of trade for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there 

were no sales of identical merchandise 

in the home 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 based on the 

characteristics listed in sections B and 

C of our antidumping questionnaire. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we first attempted to compare 

products produced by the same 

company and sold in the U.S. and home 

markets that were identical with respect 

to the following characteristics: form, 

grade, size, and industry standard 

specification. Where there were no 

home market sales of foreign like 

product that were identical in these 

respects to the merchandise sold in the 

United States, we compared U.S. 

products with the most similar 

merchandise sold in the home market 

based on the characteristics listed 

above, in that order of priority. 

Export Price 

We used EP methodology for all U.S. 

sales, in accordance with section 772(a) 

of the Act, because the subject 

merchandise was sold directly to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation, and 

constructed export price methodology 

was not otherwise warranted based on 

the facts of record. 

Regarding U.S. date of sale, four of the 

respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Ekinciler, 

Habas, and Kaptan) argued that we 

should use contract date as the date of 

sale for their U.S. sales in this review, 

while Diler and Kroman argued that we 

should base their dates of sale on 

invoice date. After analyzing the record, 

we determine that the appropriate U.S. 

date of sale for Colakoglu, Diler, and 

Habas is the earlier of invoice or 

shipment date because: (1) we 

previously found that the terms of sale 

(i.e., price and quantity) were 

changeable after the contract date for 

these respondents (see Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455, 

26458 (May 5, 2006) (04–05 Preliminary 

Results), unchanged in the final results); 

and, (2) we find that there were no 

changes in the sales process, customers, 

types of contracts, etc., between the 

previous administrative review and the 

current POR for these respondents. 

Further, regarding Ekinciler, we 

determined that the appropriate U.S. 

date of sale is contract date because, as 

in the previous administrative review, 

we find that the material terms of sale 

were set at the contract date, given that 

the terms did not change prior to 

invoicing. See id. 

Finally, regarding Kaptan and 

Kroman, because these companies were 

not respondents in the previous 

administrative review, we examined the 

contracts and invoices related to their 

U.S. sales. For Katpan, we found that 

the terms of sale were not set at the 

contract date and, therefore, we used the 

earlier of invoice or shipment date as 

the U.S. date of sale. For Kroman, we 

determined that there were no changes 

to the material terms of sale between the 

contract and invoice date and, therefore, 

we used contract date as the U.S. date 

of sale. 

A. Colakoglu 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for loading expenses, 

inspection fees, demurrage expenses 

(offset by freight commission revenue, 

dispatch revenue, and other freight– 

related revenue), ocean freight expenses, 

U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage 

and handling expenses, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

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

B. Diler 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight 

expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, and loading 

expenses, where appropriate, in 

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

the Act. 

C. Ekinciler 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight, 

customs overtime fees, crane charges, 

terminal charges, inspection fees, 

demurrage expenses (offset by despatch 

revenue), ocean freight expenses (offset 

by freight revenue), U.S. customs duties, 

and U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, in accordance with section 

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

D. Habas 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight 

expenses, customs overtime fees, 

loading charges (offset by despatch 

revenue), forklift charges, surveying 

expenses, and ocean freight expenses, 

where appropriate, in accordance with 

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

Additionally, we added to the starting 

price an amount for duty drawback 

pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act. 

E. Kaptan 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight 

expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling charges, loading expenses, 

inspection fees, freight commission 

expenses, demurrage commission 

expenses, weighing charges, and ocean 

freight expenses (offset by freight– 

related revenues), where appropriate, in 

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

the Act. Additionally, we added to the 

starting price an amount for duty 

drawback pursuant to section 

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

F. Kroman 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight 

expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, inspection fees, 

ocean freight expenses, U.S. customs 

duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses where appropriate, in 

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

the Act. Additionally, we added to the 

starting price an amount for duty 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 25257 

drawback pursuant to section 

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

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Markets 

In order to determine whether there is 

a 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 is five percent or 

more of the aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales), we compared the volume of each 

respondent’s home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 

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

the Act. Based on this comparison, we 

determined that each respondent had a 

viable home market during the POR. 

Consequently, we based NV on home 

market sales. 

For each respondent, in accordance 

with our practice, we excluded home 

market sales of non–prime merchandise 

made during the POR from our 

preliminary analysis based on the 

limited quantity of such sales in the 

home market and the fact that no such 

sales were made to the United States 

during the POR. See, e.g., 04–05 

Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26459, 

unchanged in the final results; Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 

Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Intent To Revoke in Part, 70 FR 23990, 

23993 (May 6, 2005), unchanged in the 

final results; Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Intent Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 

25066, 25066 (May 5, 2004), unchanged 

in the final results; Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent Not to Revoke in Part, 68 FR 

23972 (May 6, 2003), unchanged in the 

final results. 

B. Affiliated–Party Transactions and 

Arm’s–Length Test 

Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kroman 

made sales of rebar to affiliated parties 

in the home market during the POR. 

Consequently, we tested these sales to 

ensure that they were made at arm’s– 

length prices, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the 

sales to affiliates were made at arm’s– 

length prices, we compared the unit 

prices of sales to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, and packing expenses. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, where the price to that 

affiliated party was, on average, within 

a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price 

of the same or comparable merchandise 

sold to the unaffiliated parties at the 

same level of trade (LOT), we 

determined that the sales made to the 

affiliated party were at arm’s length. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002) 

(establishing that the overall ratio 

calculated for an affiliate must be 

between 98 and 102 percent in order for 

sales to be considered in the ordinary 

course of trade and used in the NV 

calculation). Sales to affiliated 

customers in the home market that were 

not made at arm’s–length prices were 

excluded from our analysis because we 

considered these sales to be outside the 

ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 

351.102(b). 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, 

and Habas, there were reasonable 

grounds to believe or suspect that these 

respondents made home market sales at 

prices below their costs of production 

(COPs) in this review because the 

Department had disregarded sales that 

failed the cost test for these companies 

in the most recently completed segment 

of this proceeding in which these 

companies participated (i.e., the 2003– 

2004 administrative review for 

Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas and the 

2000–2001 administrative review for 

Ekinciler). As a result, the Department 

initiated an investigation to determine 

whether these companies made home 

market sales during the POR at prices 

below their COPs. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of 

the Act, for Kaptan and Kroman, there 

were reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that these respondents made 

home market sales at prices below their 

COP in this review because of 

information contained in the cost 

allegations properly filed by the 

domestic interested parties. As a result, 

the Department initiated an 

investigation to determine whether 

Kaptan and Kroman made home market 

sales during the POR at prices below 

their COPs. See the ‘‘Kaptan Cost 

Allegation Memo’’ and the ‘‘Kroman 

Cost Allegation Memo.’’ 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of the respondents’ cost of 

materials and fabrication for the foreign 

like product, plus amounts for general 

and administrative (G&A) expenses and 

interest expenses. See the ‘‘Test of Home 

Market Sales Prices’’ section below for 

treatment of home market selling 

expenses. 

We relied on the COP information 

provided by each respondent in its 

questionnaire responses, except for the 

following instances where the 

information was not appropriately 

quantified or valued: 

A. Colakoglu 

Because Colakoglu’s financial revenue 

exceeded its expense, we did not 

include an amount for financial expense 

in the calculation of COP or constructed 

value (CV). This is in accordance with 

the Department’s practice of 

determining that, when a company 

earns enough financial income that it 

recovers all of its financial expense, that 

company did not have a resulting cost 

for financing during that period. See 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 

from Turkey; Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455, 

26460 (May 5, 2006) (04–05 Preliminary 

Results), unchanged in the final results; 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products From 

Canada, 70 FR 73437 (Dec. 12, 2005) 

(Lumber from Canada), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 9 and 25. 

For further discussion of this 

adjustment, see the Memorandum from 

LaVonne Clark to Neal Halper entitled, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Colakoglu 

Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret 

A.S.,’’ dated April 30, 2007. 

B. Diler 

1. We applied the transactions 

disregarded rule under section 

773(f)(2) of the Act to the billets 

purchased through an affiliated 

reseller. As a result, we adjusted 

Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve 

Turizm Ticaret A.S.’s (Yazici 

Demir’s) fixed and variable costs of 

steelmaking. 

2. We adjusted the reported G&A 

expenses for Yazici Demir to 

exclude an offset for an income 

item related to an affiliated party 

because the income was associated 

with Yazici Demir’s investment 

activities. 

3. We adjusted the reported G&A 

expenses for Diler Demir Celik 

Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Diler 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
25258 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 

Demir) to include the cost of POR 

donations. 

4. We adjusted the respective cost of 

sales figure used as the 

denominator for G&A and financial 

expense rate calculations by 

excluding the costs of byproduct 

merchandise sold during the 2005 

fiscal year for Yazici Demir and 

Diler Demir. 

5. Because Diler’s financial revenue 

exceeded its expense, we did not 

include an amount for financial 

expense in the calculation of COP 

or CV. See 04–05 Preliminary 

Results, 71 FR at 26460; Lumber 

from Canada at Comments 9 and 25. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Memorandum from 

Angela Strom to Neal Halper entitled, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results - Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve 

Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi 

ve Tursizm Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis 

Ticaret A.S.,’’ dated April 30, 2007. 

C. Ekinciler 

1. We adjusted Ekinciler’s G&A 

expense ratio to include the actual 

expenses charged by its parent 

company (i.e., Ekinciler Holding) 

for direct services and allocated 

Ekinciler Holding’s residual G&A 

expenses (i.e., those G&A expenses 

not charged to a subsidiary) to each 

subsidiary, including Ekinciler, 

based on the proportion of each 

subsidiary’s cost of sales (COS). 

2. We recalculated Ekinciler’s fiscal 

year–end 2005 depreciation 

expenses for assets with remaining 

useful lives to be based on the 

stated depreciation rates reported in 

Ekinciler’s general assets ledger. 

3. We have excluded the COS for 

scrap and defective billets from the 

COS denominator in calculating the 

G&A and financial expense ratios. 

4. We adjusted Ekinciler’s fixed 

overhead expense to include the 

amortization of certain proprietary 

assets. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Memorandum from 

Laurens van Houten to Neal Halper 

entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary Results 

- Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S.,’’ 

dated April 30, 2007. 

D. Habas 

1. We adjusted the reported cost of 

raw materials to include import 

duties that were not collected by 

the Turkish government due to the 

subsequent re–exportation of the 

material and the claimed duty 

drawback adjustment. 

2. Because Habas’ financial revenue 

exceeded its expense, we did not 

include an amount for financial 

expense in the calculation of COP 

or CV. See 04–05 Preliminary 

Results, 71 FR at 26460; Lumber 

from Canada at Comments 9 and 

25. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Memorandum from 

Gina Lee to Neal Halper entitled, ‘‘Cost 

of Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Habas Sinai ve 

Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.,’’ 

dated April 30, 2007. 

E. Kaptan 

We adjusted the reported cost of raw 

materials to include import duties that 

were not collected by the Turkish 

government due to the subsequent re– 

exportation of the material and the 

claimed duty drawback adjustment. For 

further discussion of these adjustments, 

see the Memorandum from Trinette 

Boyd to Neal Halper entitled, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Kaptan Demir 

Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. and 

Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat 

A.S.,’’ dated April 30, 2007. 

F. Kroman 

1. We adjusted the reported cost of 

raw materials to include import 

duties that were not collected by 

the Turkish government due to the 

subsequent re–exportation of the 

material and the claimed duty 

drawback adjustment. 

2. We adjusted the net financial 

expense rate to: (1) exclude offsets 

for investment–related gains and 

losses by adding them to the 

reported net interest expense; and, 

(2) correct mathematical errors 

contained in Kroman’s calculation. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Memorandum from 

Frederick Mines to Neal Halper entitled, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Kroman Celik 

Sanayii A.S.and Yucelboru Ihracat 

Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S.,’’ dated April 

30, 2007. 

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices 

We compared the weighted–average 

COP figures to home market prices of 

the foreign like product, as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act, to 

determine whether these sales had been 

made at prices below the COP. On a 

product–specific basis, we compared 

the COP to home market prices, less any 

applicable movement charges, selling 

expenses, and packing expenses. 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined whether such 

sales were made: 1) in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time; and 2) at prices which permitted 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time. See sections 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) 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 were at prices below 

the COP, we determined that sales of 

that model were made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ within an extended period of 

time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) 

of the Act), in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such cases, 

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, for purposes of this 

administrative review, we disregarded 

these below–cost sales for Diler, 

Ekinciler, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman, 

and used the remaining sales as the 

basis for determining NV, in accordance 

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

D. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of 

the starting–price sales in the 

comparison market or, when NV is 

based on CV, that of the sales from 

which we derive selling, G&A expenses, 

and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also 

the level of the starting–price sale, 

which is usually from the exporter to 

the unaffiliated U.S. customer. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP sales, 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 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 25259 

LOT of the export transaction, we make 

an LOT adjustment under section 

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

All the respondents in this review 

claimed that they sold rebar at a single 

LOT in their home and U.S. markets. 

Five of the respondents (Diler, Ekinciler, 

Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman) reported 

that they sold rebar directly to various 

categories of customers in the home 

market, while the remaining company 

(Colakoglu) reported that it made both 

direct sales and sales through affiliated 

resellers to various categories of 

customers in the home market. 

Regarding U.S. sales, all respondents 

reported only EP sales to the United 

States to a single customer category (i.e., 

unaffiliated traders). Similar to their 

home market channels of distribution, 

five of these respondents reported direct 

sales to U.S. customers, while one 

respondent (Colakoglu) reported that it 

made all of its U.S. sales through an 

affiliated party in the United States. 

Regarding these latter sales, we have 

classified them as EP transactions, in 

accordance with our practice, because 

evidence on the record demonstrates 

that: (1) all significant selling activities 

related to these sales (e.g., price 

negotiations, invoicing) were conducted 

by Colakoglu personnel in Turkey; (2) 

the only selling functions provided by 

Colakoglu employees on behalf of the 

affiliated party include certain import– 

related expenses; and (3) this affiliated 

party has no physical location or 

employees in the United States. See 04– 

05 Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26461, 

unchanged in the final results. 

To determine whether sales to any of 

these customer categories were made at 

different LOTs, we examined the stages 

in the marketing process and selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

for each of these respondents. Regarding 

home market sales, each of the 

respondents reported that it performed 

identical selling functions across 

customer categories in the home market. 

After analyzing the data on the record 

with respect to these functions, we find 

that the respondents performed the 

same selling functions for their home 

market customers, regardless of 

customer category or channel of 

distribution. Regarding Colakoglu, 

although it made direct sales and sales 

through its affiliated resellers in the 

home market, we find that there is one 

home market LOT because: 1) the 

resellers do not have separate locations 

apart from Colakoglu’s offices; and 2) all 

selling activities related to home market 

sales made by the affiliated resellers are 

performed by Colakoglu personnel. 

Therefore, we find that Colakoglu does 

not perform an additional layer of 

selling functions for the home market 

sales through its affiliated resellers. 

Accordingly, we find that all of the 

respondents made all sales at a single 

marketing stage (i.e., at one LOT) in the 

home market. 

Regarding U.S. sales, each of the 

respondents reported that it only made 

sales to one customer category through 

one channel of distribution in the U.S. 

market and, thus, identical selling 

functions were performed for all sales. 

Therefore, after analyzing the data on 

the record with respect to these 

functions, we find that the respondents 

made all sales at a single marketing 

stage (i.e., one LOT) in the U.S. market. 

Although each of the respondents 

provided certain additional services for 

U.S. sales and not home market sales, 

we did not find these differences to be 

material selling function distinctions 

significant enough to warrant a separate 

LOT for any respondent. Therefore, after 

analyzing the selling functions 

performed in each market, we find that 

the distinctions in selling functions are 

not material and thus, that the home 

market and U.S. LOTs are the same. 

Accordingly, we determined that sales 

in the U.S. and home markets during the 

POR for each respondent were made at 

the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT 

adjustment is warranted for any of the 

respondents. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value 

1. Colakoglu 

We based NV on the starting prices to 

home market customers. For those home 

market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, 

we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather 

than the Turkish lira (YTL) price 

adjusted for kur farki (i.e., an 

adjustment to the YTL invoice price to 

account for the difference between the 

estimated and actual YTL value on the 

date of payment), because the only price 

agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, 

which remained unchanged. The buyer 

merely paid the YTL–equivalent amount 

at the time of payment. This treatment 

is consistent with our treatment of these 

transactions in the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding. 

See 04–05 Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 

26461, unchanged in the final results. 

Where appropriate, we made deductions 

from the starting price for foreign inland 

freight expenses, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

for credit expenses (offset by interest 

revenue), bank charges, exporter 

association fees, and commissions. 

Regarding commissions, Colakoglu 

incurred commissions only in relation 

to U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. 

commissions by the lesser of the 

commission amount or home market 

indirect selling expenses. We deducted 

home market packing costs and added 

U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we made an 

adjustment to NV to account for 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise, in accordance with 

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

CFR 351.411(a). We based this 

adjustment on the difference in the 

variable costs of manufacturing for the 

foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

2. Diler 

We based NV on the starting prices to 

home market customers. For those home 

market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, 

we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather 

than the YTL price adjusted for kur 

farki, because the only price agreed 

upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which 

remained unchanged. For further 

discussion, see the ‘‘Colakoglu’’ section 

above. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

foreign inland freight expenses, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act. 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

for credit expenses (offset by interest 

revenue), bank fees, and exporter 

association fees. We deducted home 

market packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we made an 

adjustment to NV to account for 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise, in accordance with 

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

CFR 351.411(a). We based this 

adjustment on the difference in the 

variable costs of manufacturing for the 

foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

3. Ekinciler 

We based NV on the starting prices to 

home market customers. For those home 

market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, 

we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather 

than the YTL price adjusted for kur 

farki, because the only price agreed 

upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which 

remained unchanged. For further 

discussion, see the ‘‘Colakoglu’’ section 

above. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

billing adjustments. In addition, where 

appropriate, we made deductions for 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
25260 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 

foreign inland freight expenses, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act. 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

for credit expenses, bank charges, and 

exporter association fees. We deducted 

home market packing costs and added 

U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we made an 

adjustment to NV to account for 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise, in accordance with 

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

CFR 351.411(a). We based this 

adjustment on the difference in the 

variable costs of manufacturing for the 

foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

4. Habas 

We based NV on the starting prices to 

home market customers. For those home 

market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, 

we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather 

than the YTL price adjusted for kur 

farki, because the only price agreed 

upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which 

remained unchanged. For further 

discussion, see the ‘‘Colakoglu’’ section 

above. 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

for credit expenses, bank charges, and 

exporter association fees. We deducted 

home market packing costs and added 

U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we made an 

adjustment to NV to account for 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise, in accordance with 

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

CFR 351.411(a). We based this 

adjustment on the difference in the 

variable costs of manufacturing for the 

foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

5. Kaptan 

We based NV on the starting prices to 

home market customers. Where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price for foreign inland 

freight expenses, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

for credit expenses, bank fees, exporter 

association fees, and commissions. 

Regarding commissions, Kaptan 

incurred commissions only in relation 

to U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. 

commissions by the lesser of the 

commission amount or home market 

indirect selling expenses. We deducted 

home market packing costs and added 

U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we made an 

adjustment to NV to account for 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise, in accordance with 

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

CFR 351.411(a). We based this 

adjustment on the difference in the 

variable costs of manufacturing for the 

foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

6. Kroman 

We based NV on the starting prices to 

home market customers. For those home 

market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, 

we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather 

than the YTL price adjusted for kur 

farki, because the only price agreed 

upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which 

remained unchanged. For further 

discussion, see the ‘‘Colakoglu’’ section 

above. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

billing adjustments. In addition, where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price for foreign inland 

freight expenses, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

for credit expenses and exporter 

association fees. We deducted home 

market packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. 

Where appropriate, we made an 

adjustment to NV to account for 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise, in accordance with 

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

CFR 351.411(a). We based this 

adjustment on the difference in the 

variable costs of manufacturing for the 

foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars pursuant to section 773A(a) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415. 

Although the Department’s preferred 

source for daily exchange rates is the 

Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal 

Reserve Bank does not track or publish 

exchange rates for Turkish Lira. 

Therefore, we made currency 

conversions based on exchange rates 

from the Dow Jones Reuters Business 

Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva). 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist for the 

respondents during the period April 1, 

2005, through March 31, 2006: 

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage 

Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. ....................................................................................... 0.13 (de minimis) 

Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S./ Diler Dis 

Ticaret A.S. .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.16 (de minimis) 

Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./ Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. ............................................................................ 3.70 

Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S. ............................................................................................. 0.22 (de minimis) 

Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./ Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. .................................. 0.00 

Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S./ Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. ............................................................. 0.00 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit cases 

briefs not later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, may be filed not later 

than 35 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. Parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument: (1) a statement of 

the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and, (3) a table of authorities. 

In addition, we note that we will 

provide interested parties with an 

opportunity to submit comments 

pertaining to our preliminary 

conclusions on the Competition Board’s 

report once such conclusions are 

reached. 

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 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices 25261 

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. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of the administrative and new shipper 

reviews, 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 

Upon completion of the 

administrative and new shipper 

reviews, the Department shall 

determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to these 

reviews directly to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

this review. 

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

all sales made by Colakoglu, Habas, 

Kaptan, and Kroman, as well as for 

certain sales made by Ekinciler, because 

we have the reported 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. 

Regarding all of Diler’s and certain of 

Ekinciler’s sales, we note that these 

companies did not report the entered 

value for the U.S. sales in question. 

Accordingly, 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 ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by these reviews if any 

importer–specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of these 

reviews 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). 

We are preliminarily revoking the 

order with respect to Colakoglu’s and 

Diler’s exports of subject merchandise. 

If these revocations become final, we 

will instruct CBP to terminate the 

suspension of liquidation for exports of 

such merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after April 1, 2006, 

and to refund all cash deposits 

collected. 

The final results of these reviews shall 

be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of these reviews and for future deposits 

of estimated duties, where applicable. 

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 POR 

produced by companies included in 

these preliminary results of review for 

which the reviewed 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 

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 

the administrative and new shipper 

reviews, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash 

deposit rate for each specific company 

listed above will be that established in 

the final results of these reviews, 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 these reviews, 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 these reviews or 

the original less–than-fair–value (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 16.06 

percent, the All–Others rate established 

in the LTFV investigation. These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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), 751(a)(2)(B)(iv), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR 

351.214(i), 351.221(b)(4), and 

351.222(f)(2)(iv). 

Dated: April 30, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8583 Filed 5–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Implementation of the Findings of the 

WTO Panel in US—Zeroing (EC): 

Notice of Determinations Under 

Section 129 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act and Revocations and 

Partial Revocations of Certain 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On April 23, 2007, the U.S. 

Trade Representative instructed the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) to implement its findings 

under section 129 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (URAA) regarding the 

offsetting of dumped sales with nondumped sales in investigations 

involving average-to-average 

transactions. The Department issued its 

findings on April 9, 2007, regarding 

eleven investigations challenged by the 

European Communities before the 

World Trade Organization. The 

Department is now implementing those 

findings. 

DATES: The effective date of these 

determinations is April 23, 2007. 


cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES