Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Notices 9787 

products for the ACS 5-year estimates. 

We are especially interested in data 

users’ specific feedback on the following 

four dimensions of these plans: 

Block Group Level Geography—As 

detailed in the proposal at http:// 

www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ 

proposal_acs5yearproducts.pdf, some 

geographic summary levels, such as 

block groups, will receive only a subset 

of the full set of data products. 

However, the Census Bureau 

acknowledges the value of block group 

data for users, especially those in rural 

areas, to create their own geographies. 

The Census Bureau also recognizes that 

the small sample sizes associated with 

block groups means that many of the 

estimates at the block group level will 

not be reliable. To address these 

concerns, the Census Bureau is 

considering alternative dissemination 

options for block group data. Please 

comment on the option of releasing 

block group data but not releasing data 

products for this summary level with 

the other data products. 

Types of Data Products—We propose 

to release 5-year estimates in detailed 

tables, summary files, subject tables, 

data profiles, narrative profiles, selected 

population profiles, thematic maps, and 

geographic comparison tables. A 5-year 

PUMS files is also proposed. Narrative 

profiles and selected population profiles 

are not proposed for specific geographic 

summary levels, such as block groups. 

Restrictions Required for Disclosure 

Avoidance or Statistical Reliability—We 

propose that restrictions on the release 

of 5-year estimates be based solely on 

disclosure avoidance requirements. 

These are summarized in the proposal at 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ 

Downloads/ 

proposal_acs5yearproducts.pdf. As is 

true for all Census Bureau data 

products, standards defined to ensure 

the publication of high-quality estimates 

must be met. These standards are based 

on estimates of survey coverage, survey 

(unit) nonresponse, and item 

nonresponse. The ACS 1-year and 3- 

year estimates were subjected to 

restrictions based on the reliability of 

the estimates. The Census Bureau does 

not propose that these restrictions be 

applied to the 5-year estimates. Please 

comment if you believe that the 

standards used to determine which 1- 

and 3-year estimates are published 

should also be applied to the 5-year 

estimates. In addition, if such 

limitations are implemented, tell us if 

you suggest that the full set of estimates 

be made available to users through some 

other means. 

Periodicity of Data Release—We 

propose that, as is the case for 1-year 

estimates and 3-year estimates, ACS 5- 

year estimates be released annually. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that 

collection of information displays a 

current, valid Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) control number. In 

accordance with the PRA, 44 United 

States Code, Chapter 35, the OMB 

approved the ACS under OMB Control 

Number 0607–0810. We will furnish 

report forms to organizations included 

in the survey, and additional copies will 

be available upon written request to the 

Director, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC 20233–0001. 

Dated: February 26, 2009. 

Thomas L. Mesenbourg, 

Acting Director, U.S. Census Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E9–4803 Filed 3–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–846 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Terre Keaton Stefanova, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone; (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

1280, respectively. 

Background 

On June 4, 2008, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

initiation of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on brake 

rotors from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) covering the period April 1, 

2007, through March 31, 2008. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 31813 (June 4, 2008). 

On December 18, 2008, we extended 

the preliminary results deadline from 

December 31, 2008, to March 2, 2009. 

See Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 77004 (December 18, 

2008). 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a preliminary 

determination in an administrative 

review within 245 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month of an order or 

finding for which a review is requested. 

If it is not practicable to complete the 

review within this time period, section 

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

Department to extend this deadline to a 

maximum of 365 days after the last day 

of the anniversary month. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

this review within the original time 

limit because the Department requires 

additional time to examine separate rate 

issues in this administrative review. 

Therefore, the Department is 

extending the time limit for completion 

of the preliminary results from 306 days 

to 320 days, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The preliminary 

results are now due no later than March 

16, 2009. The final results continue to 

be due 120 days after the publication of 

the preliminary results. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: March 2, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–4804 Filed 3–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

9788 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Notices 

of the antidumping duty order on 

stainless steel bar from India. The 

period of review is February 1, 2007, 

through January 31, 2008. This review 

covers imports of stainless steel bar 

from one producer/exporter: Venus 

Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. We 

preliminarily find that sales of the 

subject merchandise have been made 

below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brandon Farlander or Scott Holland, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482– 

1279, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published 

in the Federal Register the antidumping 

duty order on stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) 

from India. See Antidumping Duty 

Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, 

India and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 

21, 1995). On February 4, 2008, the 

Department published a notice in the 

Federal Register providing an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on SSB from 

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

February 1, 2007, through January 31, 

2008. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). 

On February 11, 2008, the Department 

received a timely request for review 

from Ambica Steels Limited 

(‘‘Ambica’’). On February 29, 2008, we 

received a timely request from domestic 

interested parties Carpenter Technology 

Corp.; Crucible Specialty Metals, a 

division of Crucible Materials Corp.; 

Electralloy Co., a G.O. Carlson, Inc. 

company; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, 

Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), for a 

review of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. 

Ltd. (‘‘Venus’’). On March 31, 2008, in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), we initiated an administrative 

review on Ambica and Venus. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 16837 (March 31, 2008) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On March 31, 2008, the Department 

issued antidumping duty questionnaires 

to Ambica and Venus. Venus submitted 

its responses to the antidumping 

questionnaire in May and July 2008. 

After analyzing these responses, we 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

Venus to clarify or correct information 

contained in the initial questionnaire 

responses. We received timely 

responses to these questionnaires. 

Petitioners submitted comments on the 

questionnaire responses in June, July, 

November, and December 2008, January 

and February 2009. 

On May 16, 2008, Ambica withdrew 

its request for an administrative review. 

On June 24, 2008, the Department 

partially rescinded this administrative 

review with respect to Ambica. See 

Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 35657 

(June 24, 2008). 

On October 24, 2008, we extended the 

time limit for completing the 

preliminary results of this review to no 

later than March 2, 2009, in accordance 

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

Stainless Steel Bar from India: 

Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

63435 (October 24, 2008). 

On January 8, 2009, the Department 

met with counsel for Petitioners to 

discuss certain sales and cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’) issues. 

On January 21, 2009, Petitioners 

alleged that Venus withheld information 

regarding certain U.S. sales, the role 

played by Venus’ staff on U.S. sales, and 

Venus’ costs. According to Petitioners, 

these flaws should lead the Department 

to reject Venus’ data and, because of 

Venus’ lack of cooperation, Petitioners 

ask the Department to apply total 

adverse facts available in accordance 

with section 776(b) of the Act. See 

Petitioners’ January 21, 2009, 

submission at 10–15. 

Specifically, Venus reported that 

AMS Specialty Steel (‘‘AMS’’) is an 

unaffiliated U.S. customer and that 

Venus did not pay commissions to 

AMS, nor was AMS a sales agent for 

Venus’ sales of subject merchandise 

during the POR. Petitioners claim that 

these statements by Venus are false and 

that Venus does have a relationship 

with AMS, including that of 

commissioned agent. In addition, 

Petitioners contend that Venus 

incorrectly reported sales to AMS, as the 

U.S. customer, when it should have 

reported the first U.S. sale to an 

unaffiliated U.S. customer. Because of 

this error, according to Petitioners, 

Venus has reported wrong sales data to 

the Department for Venus’ sales through 

AMS. See Petitioners’ January 21, 2009, 

submission at 2–4. 

Petitioners additionally contend that 

all of Venus’ U.S. sales should be 

classified as constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) sales and not export price 

(‘‘EP’’) sales because Venus’ U.S. 

employee served as more than a 

communications link between Venus 

and its U.S. customers. See Petitioners’ 

January 21, 2009, submission at 5. 

Finally, Petitioners contend that 

Venus misrepresented its production 

process by withholding certain critical 

information concerning its COP. See 

Petitioners’ January 21, 2009, 

submission at 7. 

Petitioners presented support for their 

allegations which cannot be further 

described here because of its proprietary 

nature. See Petitioners’ January 21, 

2009, submission at Attachment 1 and 

Enclosure 3. 

Information in Venus’ responses 

contradicts these claims. Specifically, 

Venus has stated that AMS was its U.S. 

customer and that it sold to AMS, not 

through AMS; that AMS is not affiliated 

with Venus; that Venus negotiated the 

material terms of sale with AMS and not 

with AMS’ U.S. customers; that, in most 

cases, Venus knew the name of AMS’ 

customers only because AMS had to 

provide the names for technical 

compliance, such as material 

specification, marking, and labeling, but 

that Venus did not negotiate the selling 

price from AMS to its U.S. customer; 

that AMS was not an agent for Venus 

and that Venus did not pay 

commissions to AMS for subject 

merchandise during the POR; and that 

Venus did not have an agreement with 

AMS for AMS to be Venus’ agent, 

representative, or broker for subject 

merchandise during the POR. See 

Venus’ December 31, 2008, 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(‘‘December 31, 2008, supplemental’’) at 

18, which was refiled on January 14, 

2009, with corrected bracketing and 

Venus’ February 4, 2009, supplemental 

questionnaire response at 1. 

Regarding whether all U.S. sales 

should have been reported on a CEP 

basis, Venus reported that the employee 

was paid a fixed remuneration per 

month and certain actual expenses, such 

as telephone and travel, and that the 

employee visited Venus’ customers, 

received inquiries and orders for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Notices 9789 

stainless steel bright bar and stainless 

steel wire rod and sent this material to 

Venus in India for negotiation and 

execution. See Venus’ October 24, 2008, 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(‘‘October 24, 2008, supplemental’’) at 

20 and 22. Venus affirmed that all 

material terms of sale are concluded by 

Venus, that Venus issues sales invoices 

and collects payment, and that the 

employee did not have the authority to 

decide the material terms of sale, such 

as price, payment terms, and quantities. 

See id. at 21, and Venus’ December 31, 

2008, supplemental at 15. 

Regarding cost, Venus has described 

its production process and denies 

Petitioners’ claims. See Venus’ January 

12, 2009, supplemental questionnaire 

response at 10. 

We have carefully reviewed 

Petitioners’ claims, Venus’ responses, as 

well as all other evidence on the record. 

Based on the current record, we 

preliminarily find that Venus properly 

reported its U.S. sales and cost 

information to the Department. Thus, 

we preliminarily determine that the 

application of facts available is not 

warranted. Because of the proprietary 

nature of the information submitted by 

Petitioners in their allegation, a full 

discussion of these issues are presented 

in the preliminary results calculation 

memorandum. See Memorandum from 

the Team to the File ‘‘Preliminary 

Results Calculation Memorandum for 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated 

March 2, 2009 (‘‘Venus Preliminary 

Results Calculation Memorandum’’). 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of 

stainless steel in straight lengths that 

have been either hot-rolled, forged, 

turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or 

otherwise cold-finished, or ground, 

having a uniform solid cross section 

along their whole length in the shape of 

circles, segments of circles, ovals, 

rectangles (including squares), triangles, 

hexagons, octagons, or other convex 

polygons. SSB includes cold-finished 

SSBs that are turned or ground in 

straight lengths, whether produced from 

hot-rolled bar or from straightened and 

cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that 

have indentations, ribs, grooves, or 

other deformations produced during the 

rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut-to-length flatrolled products (i.e., cut-to-length rolled 

products which if less than 4.75 mm in 

thickness have a width measuring at 

least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 

mm or more in thickness having a width 

which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 

least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., 

cold-formed products in coils, of any 

uniform solid cross section along their 

whole length, which do not conform to 

the definition of flat-rolled products), 

and angles, shapes, and sections. 

The SSB subject to this review is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 

7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 

7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 

7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

On May 23, 2005, the Department 

issued a final scope ruling that SSB 

manufactured in the United Arab 

Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod 

from India is not subject to the scope of 

the order. See Memorandum from Team 

to Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from 

India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 

India: Final Scope Ruling,’’ dated May 

23, 2005, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit in room 1117 of the main 

Department building (‘‘CRU’’). See also 

Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 

(September 20, 2005). 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2007, through 

January 31, 2008. 

Applicable Statute 

Unless otherwise indicated, all 

citations to the Act are references to the 

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the 

effective date of the amendments made 

to the Act by the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act. In addition, all 

references to the Department’s 

regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 

(2008). 

Affiliation 

Precision Metals 

In the 2005–2006 antidumping duty 

administrative review of SSB from 

India, the Department determined that 

Venus and Precision Metals were 

affiliated within the meaning of section 

771(33) of the Act, and also that the two 

companies should be treated as a single 

entity for the purposes of that 

administrative review. See Notice of 

Final Results and Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 72 FR 51595, 51596 

(September 10, 2007). 

During the current 2007–2008 

administrative review, the Department 

again examined Venus’ relationship 

with Precision Metals. Based on Venus’ 

representations that its corporate 

affiliation relationship with Precision 

Metals remained the same during the 

POR as during the 2005–2006 

administrative review, the Department 

hereby continues to treat Venus and 

Precision Metals as a single entity in the 

current proceeding. See Memorandum 

from Brandon Farlander to the File, 

‘‘Relationship of Venus Wire Industries 

Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metals,’’ dated 

January 9, 2009, which is on file in the 

CRU. 

Sieves Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. 

On November 14, 2008, Petitioners 

alleged that, because Venus reported 

that its affiliate, Sieves Manufacturing 

Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Sieves’’), is a manufacturer of 

SSB and made sales of the subject 

merchandise in the home market, Venus 

and Sieves should be treated as a single 

entity under 19 CFR 351.401(f). As 

discussed in the Memorandum from 

Scott Holland to Susan Kuhbach, Office 

Director, ‘‘Whether to Treat Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves 

Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. as a Single 

Entity,’’ dated March 2, 2009, which is 

on file in the CRU, the Department finds 

that Venus and Sieves have met the 

criteria set forth under 19 CFR 

351.401(f). Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that Venus and Sieves should 

be treated as a single entity in this 

review. We intend to seek further 

information regarding the relationship 

of these companies and the types of 

merchandise sold by Sieves to use in the 

final results. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of SSB by 

Venus to the United States were made 

at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’), we 

compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV. 

See ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. Pursuant to 

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

compared the EPs of individual 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 sold 

by the respondent in the comparison 

market covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, to 

be foreign-like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance 

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

in order to determine whether there was 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

9790 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Notices 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared the 

respondent’s volume of home market 

sales of the foreign-like product to the 

volumes of its U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. See the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section, below, for further details. 

We compared U.S. sales to monthly 

weighted-average prices of 

contemporaneous sales made in the 

home market based on the following 

criteria: (1) General type of finish; (2) 

grade; (3) remelting; (4) type of final 

finishing operation; (5) shape; and (6) 

size. This was consistent with our 

practice in the original investigation. 

See Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Stainless Steel Bar From India, 59 FR 

39733, 39735 (August 4, 1994); 

unchanged in the final, see Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar 

from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 

1994). Where there were no home 

market sales of the 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, made in the ordinary course 

of trade. Where there were no sales of 

identical or similar merchandise made 

in the ordinary course of trade in the 

comparison market, we compared U.S. 

sales to constructed value (‘‘CV’’). 

Date of Sale 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the 

date of sale is normally the date of 

invoice unless satisfactory evidence is 

presented that the material terms of sale, 

price and quantity, are established on 

some other date. Venus reported that the 

material terms of sale can change up 

until the date of the invoice for both the 

home market and the U.S. market. See 

May 16, 2008, Section A Questionnaire 

Response (‘‘AQR’’) at A–14. Further, 

Venus provided sales documents that 

demonstrated that Venus experienced 

material changes in quantity sold that 

were outside of Venus’ delivery 

tolerances for sales to the United States. 

For the home market, Venus provided 

sales documents that demonstrated that 

Venus experienced price changes and 

material changes in quantity sold that 

were outside of Venus’ delivery 

tolerances. See AQR at Annexure A–4. 

Therefore, based on record evidence, we 

have used the date of invoice as the date 

of sale for Venus’ sales to the United 

States and in the home market. 

Export Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

calculated EP in accordance with 

section 772 of the the Act. Section 

772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price 

at which the subject merchandise is first 

sold before the date of importation by 

the producer or exporter outside of the 

United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States, as adjusted under 

section 772(c) of the Act. 

We calculated EP for Venus because 

the merchandise was sold prior to 

importation by the exporter or producer 

outside the United States to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States, and because CEP methodology 

was not otherwise warranted. For 

Venus, we based EP on the packed, 

delivered duty paid, or cost insurance 

freight price to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States. We adjusted the 

reported gross unit price, where 

applicable, for early payment discounts 

and other discounts for weight 

shortages, short payments or quality 

claims. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

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

deductions included, where 

appropriate, freight incurred in 

transporting merchandise to the Indian 

port, domestic brokerage and handling, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

U.S. brokerage and handling, freight 

incurred in the United States, U.S. 

customs duties, and other transportation 

fees. See Venus Preliminary Results 

Calculation Memorandum. 

Duty Drawback 

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

provides that EP or CEP shall be 

increased by among other things, ‘‘the 

amount of any import duties imposed 

by the country of exportation which 

have been rebated, or which have not 

been collected, by reason of the 

exportation of the subject merchandise 

to the United States.’’ The Department 

determines that an adjustment to U.S. 

price for claimed duty drawback is 

appropriate when a company can 

demonstrate that: (1) the ‘‘import duty 

and rebate are directly linked to, and 

dependent upon, one another;’’ and (2) 

‘‘the company claiming the adjustment 

can show that there were sufficient 

imports of the imported raw materials to 

account for the drawback received on 

the exported product.’’ Rajinder Pipes, 

Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 

1350, 1358 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999). 

Venus claimed a duty drawback 

adjustment based on its participation in 

the Indian government’s Duty 

Entitlement Passbook Program. The 

Department finds that Venus has not 

provided substantial evidence on the 

record to establish the necessary link 

between the import duty and the 

reported duty drawback. Therefore, 

because Venus has failed to meet the 

Department’s requirements, we are 

denying Venus’ request for a duty 

drawback adjustment for the 

preliminary results. See Venus 

Preliminary Results Calculation 

Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

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

that NV be based on the price at which 

the foreign-like product is sold in the 

home market, provided that the 

merchandise is sold in sufficient 

quantities (or value, if quantity is 

inappropriate) and that there is no 

particular market situation that prevents 

a proper comparison with the EP. 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act 

contemplates that quantities (or values) 

will normally be considered insufficient 

if they are less than five percent of the 

aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States. 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared Venus’ 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign-like product to its volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

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

the Act. Venus reported that its home 

market sales of SSB during the POR 

were more than five percent of its sales 

of SSB to the United States. See July 7, 

2008, section B questionnaire response 

(‘‘BQR’’) at B–4. Therefore, Venus’’ 

home market was viable for purposes of 

calculating NV. Accordingly, Venus 

reported its home market sales. To 

derive NV for Venus, we made the 

adjustments detailed in the ‘‘Calculation 

of Normal Value Based on Home Market 

Prices’’ section below. 

B. Level of Trade 

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

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

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

as the EP. Sales are made at different 

LOTs if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

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

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Notices 9791 

4The marketing process in the United States and 

comparison market begins with the producer and 

extends to the sale to the final user or customer. 

The chain of distribution between the two may have 

many or few links, and each respondent’s sales 

occur somewhere along this chain. In performing 

this evaluation, we considered the respondent’s 

narrative response to properly determine where in 

the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 

5Selling functions associated with a particular 

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

in a particular market. For purposes of these 

preliminary results, we have organized the common 

selling functions into four major categories: sales 

process and marketing support, freight and 

delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality 

assurance/warranty services. 

6Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling expenses, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘G&A’’) and profit for CV, where 

possible. 

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

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 

19, 1997). In order to determine whether 

the comparison sales were at different 

stages in the marketing process than the 

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain 

of distribution’’),4 including selling 

functions,5 class of customer (‘‘customer 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant 

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

identifying LOTs for EP and comparison 

market sales (i.e., NV based on either 

comparison market or third country 

prices),6 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. When the 

Department is unable to match U.S. 

sales to sales of the foreign-like product 

in the comparison market at the same 

LOT as the EP, the Department may 

compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 

different LOT in the comparison market. 

In comparing EP sales at a different LOT 

in the comparison market, where 

available data make it practicable, we 

make an LOT adjustment under section 

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

We obtained information from Venus 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making the reported home market 

and U.S. sales, including a description 

of the selling activities performed for 

each channel of distribution. Our LOT 

findings are summarized below. 

Venus reported one channel of 

distribution and a single LOT in both 

the home market and the U.S. market. 

Further, Venus claimed that its sales in 

both markets were at the same LOT and 

Venus did not request a LOT 

adjustment. See BQR at B–29, and 

section C questionnaire response at C– 

30. 

Venus reported that it sells to end 

users, distributors, and trading 

companies at the same LOT in the home 

market. Also, Venus reported that it 

sells to distributors and trading 

companies at the same LOT in the U.S. 

market. Venus reported that its prices 

did not vary based on channel of 

distribution and/or customer category. 

See AQR at A–13. 

We examined the information 

reported by Venus regarding its sales 

processes for its home market and U.S. 

market sales, including customer 

categories and the type and level of 

selling activities performed. See AQR at 

A–13. Specifically, we considered the 

extent to which, for instance, sales 

process/marketing support, freight/ 

delivery, inventory maintenance, and 

quality assurance/warranty service 

varied with respect to the different 

customer categories and channels of 

distribution across the markets. We 

concluded that the home market 

channel of distribution comprises one 

LOT. See id. We evaluated the U.S. 

channel of distribution and concluded 

that it also comprises one LOT. Next, we 

compared the U.S. LOT to the home 

market LOT. See id. Venus reported that 

it sold to similar categories of customer 

in both the home market and the U.S. 

market. See id. Venus reported similar 

levels of freight/delivery in both the 

home market and U.S. market. See id. 

Further, Venus reported no inventory 

maintenance in either the home market 

or the U.S. market, and reported that it 

provided no warranty services in any of 

its channels of distribution. See id. The 

only minor difference that Venus 

reported was in sales process/marketing 

support, where Venus indicated that it 

advertises and promotes its U.S. market 

sales, but not the home market sales. 

See id. 

Based on the foregoing, we 

preliminarily find that Venus’ sales in 

the home market and the United States 

were made at the same LOT. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

segment of the proceeding at the time of 

initiation, the Department found that 

Venus made sales in the comparison 

market at prices below the cost of 

producing the merchandise and 

excluded such sales from the 

calculation of NV. Therefore, the 

Department determined that there were 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that SSB sales were made in the 

comparison market at prices below the 

COP in this administrative review for 

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

Act. As a result, the Department 

initiated a COP inquiry for Venus. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the COP based 

on the sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign-like product, 

plus amounts for G&A expenses, 

financial expenses, and comparison 

market packing costs, where 

appropriate. We relied on the COP data 

submitted by Venus except where noted 

below. 

2. Results of the COP Test 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product because we determined 

that the below-cost sales were not made 

in substantial quantities. Where 20 

percent or more of a respondent’s sales 

of a given product during the POR were 

at prices less than the COP, we 

determined such sales of that model 

were made in substantial quantities 

within an extended period of time in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act. Because we 

compared prices to the POR-average 

COP, we also determined that such sales 

were not made at prices which would 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time, in accordance 

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

such cases, for Venus, we disregarded 

these below-cost sales of a given 

product 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 Home Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on ex-factory 

or delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the home market. We 

made adjustments for differences in 

packing in accordance with sections 

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

Act, and we deducted movement 

expenses consistent with section 

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

where applicable, we made adjustments 

for differences in cost attributable to 

differences in physical characteristics of 

the merchandise pursuant to section 

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

differences in circumstances of sale in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also 

made adjustments, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling 

expenses incurred on comparison 

market or U.S. sales where commissions 

were granted on sales in one market but 

not in the other. Specifically, where 

commissions were granted in the U.S. 

market but not in the comparison 

market, we made a downward 

adjustment to NV for the lesser of (1) the 

amount of the commission paid in the 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

9792 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 43 / Friday, March 6, 2009 / Notices 

indirect selling expenses incurred in the 

comparison market. If commissions 

were granted in the comparison market 

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

upward adjustment to NV following the 

same methodology. We did not make 

further adjustments to Venus’ home 

market data. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as reported by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

For the firms listed below, we find 

that the following weighted-average 

percentage margin exists for the period 

February 1, 2007, through January 31, 

2008: 

Exporter/manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd./ 

Precision Metals .................... 0.51 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations performed within five days 

of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice. Any hearing, if requested, will 

be held 42 days after the publication of 

this notice, or the first workday 

thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing 

will be limited to those raised in the 

case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed not later than 35 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument with an electronic version 

included. The Department will publish 

the final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of our 

analysis of issues raised in the briefs, no 

later than 120 days after publication of 

these preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of review in the 

Federal Register. 

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

all sales made by the respondent for 

which it has reported the importer of 

record and the entered value of the U.S. 

sales, we have calculated importerspecific assessment rates based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those sales. 

Where the respondent did not report the 

entered value for U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer-specific assessment 

rates for the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., 

less than 0.50 percent) in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem rates based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

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

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondent for which 

it did not know its merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see id. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of SSB from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for the reviewed companies 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of this administrative review 

(except no cash deposit will be required 

if its weighted-average margin is de 

minimis); (2) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, but was covered 

in a previous review or the original less 

than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; and (3) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

reviews, or the original LTFV 

investigation, 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 

and/or exporters of this merchandise, 

shall be 12.45 percent, the all-others rate 

established in the LTFV investigation. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 

(December 28, 1994). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results of review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–4798 Filed 3–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XN79 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES