Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10019 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C 

requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D 

requests information on the cost of production 

(COP) of the foreign like product and the 

constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under 

investigation. Section E requests information on 

further manufacturing. 

2The Department has not previously determined 

whether JFE is a successor to Kawasaki Steel 

Corporation or NKK Corporation nor has it been 

requested to do so in this review. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: March 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–4911 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–846] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products From Japan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel 

products (hot-rolled steel) from Japan. 

The United States Steel Corporation 

(Petitioner) requested administrative 

reviews of JFE Steel Corporation (JFE), 

Nippon Steel Corporation (Nippon), and 

Kobe Steel, Ltd. (Kobe). This review 

covers exports of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the period June 

1, 2007 through May 31, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that, in 

accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), adverse facts available (AFA) 

should be applied to JFE, Nippon, and 

Kobe for not cooperating with the 

Department in this administrative 

review. The antidumping margins 

assigned to these companies are listed 

in the Preliminary Results of Review 

section of this notice. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5050. 

Background 

On June 29, 1999, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on hot-rolled steel from Japan in the 

Federal Register. See Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon-Quality Steel Products from 

Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999). 

On June 9, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 32557 (June 9, 2008). The 

Department received a timely request 

for a review from Petitioner, covering 

JFE, Nippon, and Kobe. On July 30, 

2008, the Department published its 

initiation notice for the administrative 

review of these companies under the 

antidumping order on hot-rolled steel 

from Japan. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, and Request for 

Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 44220 

(July 30, 2008). 

The Department issued Sections A 

through E of its original questionnaire to 

JFE, Nippon, and Kobe.1 The deadlines 

to submit responses to the Department’s 

questionnaire were September 1, 2008 

for Section A, and September 17, 2008 

for Sections B through E, for JFE and 

Nippon, and October 14, 2008 for 

Section A, and October 30, 2008 for 

Sections B through E for Kobe. 

On August 12, 2008, JFE Corporation 

submitted a letter stating that, effective 

April 1, 2003, Kawasaki Steel 

Corporation had changed its name to 

JFE as part of a merger with NKK 

Corporation.2 On August 19, 2008, 

Nippon submitted a letter stating that it 

would not be submitting a response to 

the Department’s questionnaire. Neither 

JFE, Nippon, nor Kobe submitted any 

response to the Department’s 

questionnaire. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order consists of certain hot-rolled flatrolled carbon-quality steel products of a 

rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch 

or greater, neither clad, plated, nor 

coated with metal and whether or not 

painted, varnished, or coated with 

plastics or other non-metallic 

substances, in coils (whether or not in 

successively superimposed layers) 

regardless of thickness, and in straight 

lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 

mm and of a width measuring at least 

10 times the thickness. Universal mill 

plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on 

four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 

width exceeding 150 mm but not 

exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness 

of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and 

without patterns in relief) of a thickness 

not less than 4.0 mm is not included 

within the scope of this order. 

Specifically included in this scope are 

vacuum degassed, fully stabilized 

(commonly referred to as interstitial-free 

(IF)) steels, high strength low alloy 

(HSLA) steels, and the substrate for 

motor lamination steels. IF steels are 

recognized as low carbon steels with 

micro-alloying levels of elements such 

as titanium and/or niobium added to 

stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. 

HSLA steels are recognized as steels 

with micro-alloying levels of elements 

such as chromium, copper, niobium, 

titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. 

The substrate for motor lamination 

steels contains micro-alloying levels of 

elements such as silicon and aluminum. 

Steel products to be included in the 

scope of this investigation, regardless of 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) definitions, are 

products in which: (1) Iron 

predominates, by weight, over each of 

the other contained elements; (2) the 

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 

weight; and (3) none of the elements 

listed below exceeds the quantity, by 

weight, respectively indicated: 

1.80 percent of manganese, or 

1.50 percent of silicon, or 

1.00 percent of copper, or 

0.50 percent of aluminum, or 

1.25 percent of chromium, or 

0.30 percent of cobalt, or 

0.40 percent of lead, or 

1.25 percent of nickel, or 

0.30 percent of tungsten, or 

0.012 percent of boron, or 

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 

0.10 percent of niobium, or 

0.41 percent of titanium, or 

0.15 percent of vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. 

All products that meet the physical 

and chemical description provided 

above are within the scope of this order 

unless otherwise excluded. The 

following products, by way of example, 

are outside and/or specifically excluded 

from the scope of this order: 

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in 

which at least one of the chemical 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10020 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

elements exceeds those listed above 

(including e.g., ASTM specifications 

A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506). 

• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and 

higher. 

• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the 

HTSUS. 

• Tool steels, as defined in the 

HTSUS. 

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the 

HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with 

a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent. 

• ASTM specifications A710 and 

A736. 

• USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS 

AR 400, USS AR 500). 

• Hot-rolled steel coil which meets 

the following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni 

0.10–0.14% ........... 0.90% Max ........... 0.025% Max ......... 0.005% Max ......... 0.30–0.50% .......... 0.50–0.70% .......... 0.20–0.40% .......... 0.20% Max. 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063–0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000–88,000 psi. 

Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the 

following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Mo 

0.10–0.16% ....... 0.70–0.90% ...... 0.025% Max ..... 0.006% Max ..... 0.30–0.50% ...... 0.50–0.70% ...... 0.25% Max ....... 0.20% Max ....... 0.21% Max. 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. 

Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the 

following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni V (wt.) Cb 

0.10–0.14% ............ 1.30–1.80% 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30–0.50% 0.50–0.70% 0.20–0.40% 0.20% Max .. 0.10% Max .. 0.08% Max 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. 

Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the 

following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni Nb Ca Al 

0.15% Max 1.40% Max 0.025% Max 0.010% Max 0.50% Max 1.00% Max 0.50% Max 0.20% Max 0.005% Min Treated ...... 0.01–0.07% 

Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for 

thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. 

Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phasehardened, primarily with a ferriticmartensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 

percent up to and including 1.5 percent 

silicon by weight, further characterized 

by either (i) tensile strength between 

540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an 

elongation percentage 26 percent for 

thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii) 

a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2 

and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation 

percentage 25 percent for thicknesses of 

2mm and above. 

Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE 

grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion 

rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, 

Method A, with excellent surface 

quality and chemistry restrictions as 

follows: 0.012 percent maximum 

phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum 

sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum 

residuals including 0.15 percent 

maximum chromium. Grade ASTM 

A570–50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils 

or cut lengths, width of 74 inches 

(nominal, within ASTM tolerances), 

thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch 

nominal), mill edge and skin passed, 

with a minimum copper content of 

0.20%. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classified in the HTSUS at 

subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 

7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 

7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 

7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 

7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 

7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 

7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 

7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 

7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 

7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 

7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 

7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 

7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 

7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 

7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 

7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 

7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 

7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 

7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. 

Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbonquality steel covered by this order, 

including: vacuum degassed, fully 

stabilized; high strength low alloy; and 

the substrate for motor lamination steel 

may also enter under the following tariff 

numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 

7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 

7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 

7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 

7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 

7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 

7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 

7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

is dispositive. 

Analysis 

Application of Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that, if necessary information is 

not available on the record, or if an 

interested party or any other person (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the administering 

authority; (B) fails to provide such 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10021 

information in a timely matter or in the 

form or manner requested subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified as 

provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the 

administering authority shall, subject to 

section 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

JFE, Nippon, and Kobe did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. Thus, the information 

necessary for the Department to conduct 

its analysis is not available in the 

record. See Section 776(a)(1) of the Act. 

Also, JFE’s, Nippon’s, and Kobe’s failure 

to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire constitutes a refusal to 

provide the Department with 

information necessary to conduct its 

antidumping analysis. See Sections 

776(a), (2)(A), and (B) of the Act. As JFE, 

Nippon, and Kobe have withheld 

necessary information that has been 

requested by the Department, the 

Department shall, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1), (2)(A), and (2)(B) of the Act, 

use facts otherwise available to reach 

the applicable determination. JFE, 

Nippon, and Kobe have not submitted 

any requested information regarding 

this review; therefore sections 782(d) 

and (e) of the Act are not applicable. See 

e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 52007 

(September 8, 2008) (CVP–23) 

(unchanged in the final results). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department finds that an 

interested party has failed to comply by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request of information, 

the Department may use an adverse 

inference in selecting from among the 

facts otherwise available. Because JFE, 

Nippon, and Kobe did not respond to 

the Department’s questionnaire, the 

Department finds that these companies 

have failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of their ability to comply with 

the Department’s request for 

information. JFE, Nippon, and Kobe did 

not request additional time to respond 

to the questionnaire. Further, Nippon 

affirmatively stated on the record that it 

would not submit a response. By 

withholding the requested information, 

JFE, Nippon, and Kobe prevented the 

Department from conducting any 

company-specific analysis or calculating 

dumping margins for the POR. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, the Department may 

preliminarily determine that an 

inference that is adverse to the interests 

of JFE, Nippon, and Kobe is warranted. 

Section 776(b) of the Act also provides 

that an adverse inference may include 

reliance on information derived from 

the petition, the final determination in 

the investigation segment of the 

proceeding, a previous review under 

section 751 of the Act or a 

determination under section 753 of the 

Act, or any other information placed on 

the record. 

The Department’s practice, when 

selecting an adverse facts available rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information, has been to ensure that the 

margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to 

effectuate the statutory purposes of the 

adverse facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See e.g., Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 

Additionally, the Department’s practice 

has been to assign the highest margin 

determined for any party in the lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, or 

in any administrative review of a 

specific order, to respondents who have 

failed to cooperate with the Department. 

See e.g., CVP–23. 

The Department is assigning JFE, 

Nippon, and Kobe an AFA rate of 40.26 

percent ad valorem, the margin 

calculated in the section 129 

redetermination of the original LTFV 

investigation using information 

provided by Kawasaki Steel Corporation 

(Kawasaki), and the highest rate 

determined for any party in any segment 

of this case. See Notice of Determination 

Under Section 129 of the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act: Antidumping 

Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products 

from Japan, 67 FR 71936, 71939 

(December 3, 2002) (HR from Japan129). 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate ‘‘secondary 

information’’ used for facts available by 

reviewing independent sources 

reasonably at its disposal. Secondary 

information is information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise. Information from a 

prior segment of the proceeding, such as 

that used here, constitutes secondary 

information. See e.g., CVP–23. To 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See id. To the extent 

practicable, the Department will 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information to be used. Unlike other 

types of information, such as input costs 

or selling expenses, there are no 

independent sources from which the 

Department can derive calculated 

dumping margins. The only source for 

dumping margins is administrative 

determinations. In an administrative 

review, if the Department chooses as 

AFA a calculated dumping margin from 

a prior segment of the proceeding, it is 

not necessary to question the reliability 

of the margin for that period. Id. 

In making a determination as to the 

relevance aspect of corroboration, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal as to whether 

there are circumstances that would 

render a margin not relevant. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as adverse 

facts available, the Department will 

disregard the margin and determine an 

appropriate margin. For example, in 

Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin as ‘‘best 

information available’’ (the predecessor 

to ‘‘facts available’’) since the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense that 

resulted in an unusually high dumping 

margin. Similarly, the Department does 

not apply a margin that has been 

discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use 

a margin that has been judicially 

invalidated). None of these unusual 

circumstances is present here, and there 

is no evidence indicating that the 

margin used as facts available in this 

review is not appropriate. 

Absent any other information, we find 

the calculated rate from the 

investigation, as modified by HR from 

Japan129, to be appropriate in this case 

and the requirements of section 776(c) 

of the Act are satisfied. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following dumping margins exist: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 

JFE Steel Corporation .............. 40.26 

Nippon Steel Corporation ......... 40.26 

Kobe Steel, Ltd. ........................ 40.26 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10022 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

Duty Assessment 

Upon publication of the final results 

of this review, the Department shall 

determine, and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. For the period June 1, 2007 

through May 31, 2008, we preliminarily 

determine the antidumping duty margin 

to be 40.26 percent for JFE, Nippon, and 

Kobe. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, the Department will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification applies 

to entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by any company 

included in the final results of review 

for which the reviewed company did 

not know that the merchandise it sold 

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

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, the Department will instruct 

CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at 

the all-others rate if there is no rate for 

the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit rates will 

be effective with respect to all 

shipments of hot-rolled steel from Japan 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results, as 

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the 

Act: (1) For JFE, Nippon, and Kobe, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established in the final results of this 

administrative review; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above, the cash deposit rate will 

be the company-specific rate established 

for the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the 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 subject 

merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered by this review, a prior review, 

or the LTFV investigation, the cash 

deposit rate shall be the all-others rate 

established in the section 129 

redetermination of the LTFV 

investigation, which is 22.92 percent. 

See HR from Japan 129. These deposit 

rates, when imposed, shall remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to section 351.309 of the 

Department’s regulations, interested 

parties may submit written comments in 

response to these preliminary results. 

Unless the deadline is extended by the 

Department, case briefs are to be 

submitted within 30 days after the date 

of publication of this notice, and 

rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments 

raised in case briefs, are to be submitted 

no later than five days after the time 

limit for filing case briefs. Parties who 

submit arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

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

brief summary of the argument. Case 

and rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 

section 351.303(f) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Also, pursuant to section 351.310(c) 

of the Department’s regulations, within 

30 days of the date of publication of this 

notice, interested parties may request a 

public hearing on arguments to be 

raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 

Unless the Department specifies 

otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will 

be held two days after the date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties 

will be notified of the time and location. 

The Department will publish the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal 

brief, no later than 120 days after 

publication of these preliminary results, 

unless extended. See section 351.213(h) 

of the Department’s regulations. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under section 351.402(f) 

of the Department’s regulations to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published 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. E9–4908 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–351–825 

Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

stainless steel bar from Brazil. This 

review covers one producer/exporter of 

the subject merchandise, Villares Metals 

S.A. (VMSA). The period of review 

(POR) is February 1, 2007, through 

January 31, 2008. 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that VMSA made U.S. sales 

at prices less than normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of administrative review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results of 

review. We intend to issue the final 

results of review no later than 120 days 

from the publication date of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–5287 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

stainless steel bar from Brazil. 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 in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review’’ of the order. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES