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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10023 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 

(February 4, 2008). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), on February 29, 2008, 

VMSA requested that the Department 

conduct an administrative review of its 

sales and entries of subject merchandise 

into the United States during the POR; 

the Department initiated a review on 

March 31, 2008. 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). On October 27, 2008, 

we extended the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of the review by 

90 days until January 29, 2009. See 

Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 63695 

(October 27, 2008). On February 2, 2009, 

we extended the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of the review by 

30 additional days until February 28, 

2009. See Stainless Steel Bar From 

Brazil: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

5817 (February 2, 2009). 

The Department is conducting this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of the order covers 

stainless steel bar (SSB). The term SSB 

with respect to the order 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 semi–finished products, 

cut–length flat–rolled products (i.e., 

cut–length rolled products which if less 

than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width 

measuring at least 10 times the 

thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in 

thickness having a width which exceeds 

150 mm and measures at least twice the 

thickness), 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 

the order is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 7222.10.0005, 

7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005, 

7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and 

7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified sales information 

provided by VMSA using standard 

verification procedures, including on– 

site inspection of the manufacturer’s 

facility, the examination of relevant 

sales and financial records, and the 

selection of original documentation 

containing relevant information. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

public version of the verification report, 

dated January 29, 2009, which is on file 

in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 

of the main Commerce building. 

Fair–Value Comparison 

To determine whether VMSA’s sales 

of the subject merchandise from Brazil 

to the United States were at prices 

below normal value, we compared the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP) to the normal value as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ 

‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 

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

EP or CEP of individual U.S. 

transactions to the monthly weighted– 

average normal value 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 of this notice. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

covered by the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section, above, produced and sold by 

VMSA in the comparison market during 

the POR to be foreign like product for 

the purposes of determining appropriate 

products to use in comparison to U.S. 

sales of subject merchandise. 

Specifically, in making our 

comparisons, we used the following 

methodology. If an identical 

comparison–market model was 

reported, we made comparisons to 

weighted–average comparison–market 

prices that were based on all sales 

which passed the cost–of-production 

(COP) test of the identical product 

during the relevant or contemporary 

month. We calculated the weighted– 

average comparison–market prices on a 

level of trade–specific basis. If there 

were no contemporaneous sales of an 

identical model, we identified the most 

similar comparison–market model. To 

determine the most similar model, we 

matched the foreign like product based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by the respondent in the following order 

of importance: general type of finish, 

grade, remelting process, type of final 

finishing operation, shape, size. 

Export Price 

The Department based the price of 

certain U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise by VMSA on EP as defined 

in section 772(a) of the Act because 

merchandise was sold before 

importation by the producer or exporter 

of the subject merchandise outside the 

United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States. We 

calculated EP based on the packed 

F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. See 

section 772(c) of the Act. We made 

adjustments to price for billing 

adjustments and discounts, where 

applicable. We also made deductions for 

any movement expenses in accordance 

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

Constructed Export Price 

In addition to EP sales, the 

Department based the price of certain 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise by 

VMSA on CEP as defined in section 

772(b) of the Act because the 

merchandise was sold, before 

importation, by a U.S.-based seller 

affiliated with the producer to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We calculated the CEP based on 

the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. In accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 

calculated the CEP by deducting selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States, 

which includes direct selling expenses. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of 

the Act, we also deducted those indirect 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States and the profit allocated to 

expenses deducted under section 

772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 

772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In 

accordance with section 772(f) of the 

Act, we computed profit based on the 

total revenues realized on sales in both 

the U.S. and comparison markets, less 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10024 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

1The petitioners are Carpenter Technology 

Corporation, Valbruna Slater, Inc., Electralloy 

Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc., and 

Universal Stainless. 

all expenses associated with those sales. 

We then allocated profit to expenses 

incurred with respect to U.S. economic 

activity based on the ratio of total U.S. 

expenses to total expenses for both the 

U.S. and comparison markets. 

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 the ‘‘import duty and 

rebate are directly linked to, and 

dependent upon, one another’’ and ‘‘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.’’ See Rajinder Pipes, 

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

1350, 1358 (CIT 1999). 

VMSA claimed an adjustment to the 

U.S. price for duty drawback but at 

verification it was not able to support its 

claim. See Preliminary Results Analysis 

Memorandum for Villares Metals S.A., 

dated March 2, 2009 (VMSA 

Preliminary Results Analysis 

Memorandum). The Department finds 

that VMSA has not provided substantial 

evidence on the record to establish the 

necessary link between the import duty 

and the claimed duty drawback. The 

Department also finds that VMSA has 

not demonstrated that that there were 

sufficient imports of the imported raw 

materials to account for the drawback it 

received on the exported product. 

Therefore, because VMSA has not met 

the Department’s requirements, the 

Department has denied VMSA’s request 

for a duty–drawback adjustment to U.S. 

price for the preliminary results. See 

VMSA Preliminary Results Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

A. Home–Market Viability 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to 

determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales of SSB in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating the normal value, we 

compared the volume of the 

respondent’s home–market sales of the 

foreign like product to its volume of the 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

VMSA’s quantity of sales in the home 

market was greater than five percent of 

its sales to the U.S. market. Based on 

this comparison of the aggregate 

quantities sold in Brazil and to the 

United States and absent any 

information that a particular market 

situation in the exporting country did 

not permit a proper comparison, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

quantity of the foreign like product sold 

by the respondent in the exporting 

country was sufficient to permit a 

proper comparison with the sales of the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of 

the Act. Thus, we determine that 

VMSA’s home market was viable during 

the POR. Id. Therefore, in accordance 

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

we based normal value for the 

respondent on the prices at which the 

foreign like product was first sold for 

consumption in the exporting country 

in the usual commercial quantities and 

in the ordinary course of trade and, to 

the extent practicable, at the same level 

of trade as the U.S. sales. 

B. Cost–of-Production Analysis 

On November 3, 2008, the petitioners1

filed a timely below–cost allegation 

based on the revised home–market 

database VMSA submitted with its 

October 27, 2008, response to our 

supplemental questionnaire. The 

petitioners based their cost allegation on 

VMSA’s own cost information, i.e., 

inventory value and packing cost, which 

we found to be a reasonable 

methodology. On December 2, 2008, we 

initiated a cost investigation because we 

had reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that VMSA’s sales of the foreign 

like product under consideration for the 

determination of normal value may have 

been made at prices below COP as 

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

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

the Act, we have conducted a COP 

investigation of VMSA’s sales in the 

home market. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the COP based 

on the sum of the costs of materials and 

labor employed in producing the foreign 

like product, the selling, general, and 

administrative expenses, and all costs 

and expenses incidental to packing the 

merchandise. In our COP analysis, we 

used the home–market sales and COP 

information provided by VMSA in its 

questionnaire response. 

After calculating the COP, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act we tested whether home–market 

sales of the foreign like product were 

made at prices below the COP within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities and whether such prices 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. See 

section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We 

compared model–specific COPs to the 

reported home–market prices less any 

applicable movement charges, 

discounts, and rebates. 

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

Act, when less than 20 percent of 

VMSA’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 the below–cost sales 

were not made in substantial quantities 

within an extended period of time. 

When 20 percent or more of VMSA’s 

sales of a given product during the POR 

were at prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below–cost sales 

because they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act and because, based on 

comparisons of prices to weighted– 

average COPs for the POR, we 

determined that these sales were at 

prices which would not permit recovery 

of all costs within a reasonable period 

of time in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

C. Price–to-Price Comparisons 

We based normal value for VMSA on 

home–market sales to unaffiliated 

purchasers. VMSA’s home–market 

prices were based on the packed, ex– 

factory, or delivered prices. When 

applicable, we made adjustments for 

differences in packing and for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

We also 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 and 19 CFR 

351.411 and for differences in 

circumstances of sale in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to 

EP sales, we made circumstance–of-sale 

adjustments by deducting home–market 

direct selling expenses from and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses to normal 

value. We also made adjustments, if 

applicable, for home–market indirect 

selling expenses to offset U.S. 

commissions in EP calculations. For 

comparisons to CEP sales, we made 

circumstance–of-sale adjustments by 

deducting home–market direct selling 

expenses from normal value. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10025 

Level of Trade 

To the extent practicable, we 

determine normal value for sales at the 

same level of trade as EP or CEP sales. 

See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.412. When there are no 

sales at the same level of trade, we 

compare EP and CEP sales to 

comparison–market sales at a different 

level of trade. The normal–value level of 

trade is that of the starting–price sales 

in the comparison market. 

To determine whether home–market 

sales were at a different level of trade 

than VMSA’s U.S. sales in this review, 

we examined stages in the marketing 

process and selling functions along the 

chain of distribution between the 

producer and the unaffiliated customer. 

Based on our analysis, we have 

preliminarily determined that there is 

one level of trade in the United States 

and two levels of trade in the home 

market; we also find that the single U.S. 

level of trade is at the same level as one 

of the levels of trade in the home market 

and at a less advanced stage than the 

second home–market level of trade. 

Therefore, we have compared U.S. sales 

to home–market sales at the same level 

of trade and, where there was no home– 

market sale at the same level of trade, 

at a different level of trade. 

Because there are two levels of trade 

in the home market, we were able to 

calculate a level–of-trade adjustment 

based on VMSA’s home–market sales of 

the foreign like product. For a detailed 

description of our level–of-trade 

analysis for VMSA for these preliminary 

results, see VMSA Preliminary Results 

Analysis Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

Pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.415, we converted 

amounts expressed in foreign currencies 

into U.S. dollar amounts based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the relevant U.S. sales, as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted–average dumping margin for 

Villares Metals S.A. is 4.97 percent for 

the period February 1, 2007, through 

January 31, 2008. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of the publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 

351.310. If a hearing is requested, the 

Department will notify interested 

parties of the hearing schedule. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this review. The Department will 

consider case briefs filed by interested 

parties within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Interested parties may file rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The 

Department will consider rebuttal briefs 

filed not later than five days after the 

time limit for filing case briefs. Parties 

who submit arguments are requested to 

submit with each argument a statement 

of the issue, a brief summary of the 

argument, and a table of authorities 

cited. Further, we request that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

the Department with a diskette 

containing an electronic copy of the 

public version of such comments. 

We intend to issue the final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of issues 

raised in the written comments, within 

120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results in the Federal 

Register. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated importer/customer–specific 

assessment rates for these preliminary 

results of review. We divided the total 

dumping margins for the reviewed sales 

by the total entered value of those 

reviewed sales for each reported 

importer or customer. We will instruct 

CBP to assess the importer/customer– 

specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, 

on all entries of subject merchandise 

made by the relevant importer or 

customer during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b). The Department intends to 

issue instructions to CBP 15 days after 

the publication of the final results of 

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 of 

Antidumping Duties). This clarification 

will apply to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by VMSA for which VMSA did not 

know its merchandise was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries of VMSA–produced 

merchandise 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 Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of SSB from 

Brazil entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

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

cash–deposit rate for VMSA will be the 

rate established in the final results of 

this review; (2) for previously reviewed 

or investigated companies not listed 

above, the cash–deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, a prior review, 

or the less–than-fair–value 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; (4) if 

neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer has its own rate, the cash– 

deposit rate will be the all–others rate 

for this proceeding, 19.43 percent. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) 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 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled 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. E9–4907 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES