Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Notices 19199 

5See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic 

Acid from India: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination,73 FR 62465 

(October 21, 2008); and 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1- 

Diphosphonic Acid from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 62470 (October 21, 2008). 

and refund any cash deposits made and 

release any bonds posted between the 

publication of the Department’s 

preliminary determinations5 on October 

18, 2008, and the publication of the 

Commission’s final determination on 

April 23, 2009. 

This notice constitutes the 

antidumping duty orders with respect to 

HEDP from India and the PRC, pursuant 

to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested 

parties may contact the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the 

Main Commerce Building, for copies of 

an updated list of antidumping duty 

orders currently in effect. 

These orders are issued and published 

in accordance with section 736(a) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b). 

Dated: April 22, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9679 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–580–816 

Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic 

of Korea: Notice of Amended Final 

Results of the Fourteenth Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 16, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its final results 

of the fourteenth administrative review 

for certain corrosion–resistant carbon 

steel flat products (CORE) from the 

Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period 

from August 1, 2006, through July 31, 

2007. We are amending our final results 

to correct ministerial errors made in the 

calculation of the dumping margins for 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu), 

Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO), and Pohang 

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and 

Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) 

(collectively, the POSCO), pursuant to 

section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4161. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 16, 2009, the Department 

published its final results of the 

fourteenth administrative review for 

CORE from Korea for the period from 

August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. 

See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 

Korea: Notice of Final Results of the 

Fourteenth Administrative Review and 

Partial Rescission, 74 FR 11082 (March 

16, 2009) (Final Results). 

On March 17, 2009, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.224(c), United States Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel), POSCO, and 

HYSCO submitted comments alleging 

ministerial errors, and requested that 

the Department correct these alleged 

ministerial errors. On March 23, 2009, 

U.S. Steel and Nucor Corporation 

(Nucor) submitted responses to the 

ministerial error allegations made by 

HYSCO and POSCO. 

On March 17, 2009, U.S. Steel alleged 

that, with respect to Dongbu, the 

Department inadvertently used the 

difference between the payment date 

and the date of sale as the credit period 

for the calculation of credit expense in 

the home market instead of using 

Dongbu’s submitted customer–specific 

credit period. Further, U.S. Steel alleged 

that, with respect to HYSCO, the 

Department used the incorrect 

beginning and ending day for the period 

reviewed for calculation of the 

comparison market and margin 

programs. 

On March 17, 2009, POSCO alleged 

that: 1) the Department did not use the 

whole month for the beginning and 

ending window period of the 

comparison market and margin 

programs; 2) the Department 

inadvertently included the variable for 

indirect selling expenses incurred in 

Korea on export sales (‘‘DINDIRSU’’) to 

be converted from Korean Won to U.S. 

Dollars, when DINDIRSU was reported 

in U.S. Dollars and did not need to be 

converted; and 3) the Department 

should have included negative dumping 

margins in the calculation of the 

weighted–average dumping margin, 

instead of applying the methodology 

which denies offsets for non–dumped 

sales. 

On March 17, 2009, HYSCO alleged 

that the Department incorrectly applied 

an interest expense ratio based on the 

2006 consolidated financial statement 

for calculation of the 2007 interest 

expense. HYSCO argued that there is 

information on the record that would 

allow the Department to calculate the 

actual interest expenses for fiscal year 

2007. HYSCO also alleged that the 

Department did not make the full 

deductions of transportation expenses 

and ‘‘other expenses’’ in its calculation 

of the general and administrative (G&A) 

expense ratio for 2007. 

On March 23, 2009, U.S. Steel and 

Nucor responded to POSCO’s 

ministerial error allegations arguing: 1) 

that the Department intended to apply 

the zeroing methodology to POSCO’s 

margin calculations, and that it is not a 

ministerial error, and 2) that the change 

of the window period in the comparison 

market and margin programs, and the 

change to the treatment of DINDIRSU 

will have no appreciable difference on 

the margin. Thus, the Department 

should not publish an amended Final 

Results. 

On March 23, 2009, U.S. Steel also 

responded to HYSCO’s ministerial error 

allegations. U.S. Steel argued that: 1) the 

Department intended to make changes 

to the G&A expense ratio by applying 

the 2006 movement expense ratio to 

total selling expenses, and to exclude 

the ‘‘others’’ category from the non– 

operating income, and thus, the changes 

are not ministerial errors; 2) the 

Department intended to apply the 

calculated ratio of long–term to short– 

term interest rates using 2006 data to the 

2007 calculation of interest expenses, 

and thus, the changes are not ministerial 

errors; and 3) HYSCO’s proposed 

changes are based on new factual 

information, not previously on the 

record of this proceeding. 

On March 25, 2009, Union Steel 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. filed a 

summons and complaint with the Court 

of International Trade (CIT) challenging 

various aspects of the Final Results. 

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.224(e), due 

to the number of ministerial error 

allegations, and the number of 

submissions regarding the ministerial 

error allegations, the Department has 

not found it practicable to analyze 

comments received and correct any 

potential errors within 30 days of the 

publication of the Final Results. 

Scope of the Order 

This order covers cold–rolled (cold– 

reduced) carbon steel flat–rolled carbon 

steel products, of rectangular shape, 

either clad, plated, or coated with 

corrosion–resistant metals such as zinc, 

aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron–based alloys, whether or not 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
19200 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Notices 

corrugated or painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating, in coils (whether or 

not in successively superimposed 

layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or 

greater, or in straight lengths which, if 

of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, 

are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 

which measures at least 10 times the 

thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 

millimeters or more are of a width 

which exceeds 150 millimeters and 

measures at least twice the thickness, as 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item numbers 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in 

this order are corrosion–resistant flat– 

rolled products of non–rectangular 

cross–section where such cross–section 

is achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process (i.e., products which have been 

‘‘worked after rolling’’) – for example, 

products which have been beveled or 

rounded at the edges. Excluded from 

this order are flat–rolled steel products 

either plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (terne plate), or both chromium 

and chromium oxides (tin–free steel), 

whether or not painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating. Also excluded from 

this order are clad products in straight 

lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in 

composite thickness and of a width 

which exceeds 150 millimeters and 

measures at least twice the thickness. 

Also excluded from this order are 

certain clad stainless flat–rolled 

products, which are three–layered 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat– 

rolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat–rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. 

These HTSUS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written descriptions 

remain dispositive. 

Amended Final Results of Review 

After analyzing U.S. Steel’s 

comments, we have determined, in 

accordance with section 751(h) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.224, that the 

Department has made a ministerial error 

in the final results calculation for 

Dongbu in this administrative review. 

The Department has re–calculated 

Dongbu’s credit expense using the 

customer–specific credit period, as 

reported by Dongbu. For a detailed 

discussion of the ministerial error, see 

‘‘Memorandum from James Terpstra to 

Melissa Skinner, re: Amended Final 

Results for the Fourteenth 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea 

(Period of Review: August 1, 2006, 

through July 31, 2007): Allegations of 

Ministerial Errors,’’ dated April 20, 2009 

(Ministerial Error memo); see also 

‘‘Memorandum from Christopher 

Hargett to James Terpstra, re: Amended 

Final Results in the 06/07 

Administrative Review on Corrosion– 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Korea: Calculation Memorandum 

for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.,’’ dated April 

20, 2009. 

After analyzing POSCO’s comments, 

we have determined that we erred by 

not beginning the window period on the 

first day of the month in question and 

not ending the window period on the 

last day of the month in question. 

Further, we agree that we incorrectly 

included DINDRSU to the list of 

variables to be converted from Korean 

Won to U.S. Dollars. We disagree with 

POSCO regarding the treatment of sales 

that may have occurred for which the 

export price (or constructed export 

price) exceeded normal value. The 

Department’s treatment of any such 

sales that may have occurred was not a 

ministerial error. 

The Department agrees with Nucor 

that the changes to the calculations of 

POSCO’s margin in this administrative 

review do not result in a revised rate. 

Although the calculated rate for POSCO 

remains unchanged, the Department is 

making the aforementioned 

programming changes in accordance 

with the Department’s practice. See 

Ministerial Error memo; see also 

‘‘Memorandum from Christopher 

Hargett to James Terpstra, re: Amended 

Final Results in the 06/07 

Administrative Review on Corrosion– 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Korea: Calculation Memorandum 

for Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. 

(POSCO), and Pohang Coated Steel Co., 

Ltd.(POCOS)(collectively, the POSCO 

Group),’’ dated April 20, 2009. 

After analyzing HYSCO’s comments, 

we have determined that we did not 

make a clerical error with regard to the 

financial expense ratio. In order to be 

consistent with the facts on the record, 

we chose to follow the exact interest 

income allocation methodology that 

HYSCO used in the 2006 financial 

expense ratio calculation in its section 

D questionnaire response, dated 

February 4, 2008. This methodology 

reasonably allocates interest income 

based on a ratio of short–term and long– 

term deposits. 

With regard to the error allegation on 

movement expenses, we agree with 

HYSCO that we made a clerical error by 

inadvertently not deducting the total 

Freight and Export Expenses from the 

SG&A calculation. The record 

demonstrates that both of these line 

items are most likely related to freight– 

out. Regarding the ‘‘others income’’ in 

the calculation of HYSCO’s G&A 

expenses, we find that the Department 

intended to exclude the ‘‘others 

income’’ as an offset to G&A. 

With regard to the error allegation that 

we used the incorrect beginning and 

ending day for the period reviewed for 

calculation of the comparison market 

and margin programs, we agree with 

U.S. Steel that we used the incorrect 

beginning and ending day. Therefore, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we are correcting theses dates 

to reflect the first and last dates of the 

sales in question. See Ministerial Error 

memo; see also ‘‘Memorandum from 

Christopher Hargett to James Terpstra, 

Amended Final Results of the 

Fourteenth Administrative Review of 

Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from Korea: 

Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai 

HYSCO,’’ dated April 20, 2009. 

We are revising the review–specific 

average rate to reflect the weighted 

average rate based on the amended 

results of the companies subject to the 

instant review. See ‘‘Memorandum from 

Christopher Hargett to James Terpstra, 

Amended Final Results in the 06/07 

Administrative Review of Corrosion– 

Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Korea: Calculation of Review– 

Specific Average Rate,’’ dated April 20, 

2009. 

In accordance with section 751(h) of 

the Act, we are amending the final 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review of CORE from 

Korea for the period August 1, 2006, to 

July 31, 2007. As a result of correcting 

the ministerial errors discussed above, 

and in the company–specific memos 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Notices 19201 

listed above, the following margins 

apply: 

Company Final Margin Amended Final Margin 

Dongbu ................................................................................................................................ 1.85 1.90 

POSCO ................................................................................................................................ 0.53 0.53 

HYSCO ................................................................................................................................ 1.57 1.52 

Review – Specific Average1 ................................................................................................ 5.01 5.01 

1The review-specific average rate is applicable to LG Chem., Ltd., and Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available, and do not change after recalculating the margins for Dongbu, POSCO and HYSCO. 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department 

calculated importer–specific duty 

assessment rates on the basis of the ratio 

of the total antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales for that importer. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. The Department intends to 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of these amended final 

results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This 

clarification applies to POR entries of 

subject merchandise produced by 

companies examined in this review (i.e., 

companies for which a dumping margin 

was calculated) where the companies 

did not know that their merchandise 

was destined for the United States. In 

such instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– 

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of this administrative 

review for all shipments of CORE from 

Korea entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date of these final 

results, as provided by section 751(a) of 

the Act: (1) for companies covered by 

this review, the cash deposit rate will be 

the rate listed above; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies 

other than those covered by this review, 

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 less–thanfair–value investigation, but the 

producer 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 producer is a firm 

covered in this review, a prior review, 

or the investigation, the cash deposit 

rate will be 17.70 percent, the all–others 

rate established in the less–than-fair– 

value investigation. These deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties occurred and the 

subsequent increase in antidumping 

duties by the amount of antidumping 

and/or countervailing duties 

reimbursed. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also is the only reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

These amended final results of 

administrative review and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and (h), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.224. 

Dated: April 22, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–9676 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–580–818 

Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 17, 1993, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

countervailing duty order on corrosion– 

resistant carbon steel flat products 

(CORE) from Korea. See Countervailing 

Duty Orders and Amendments of Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determinations: Certain Steel Products 

from Korea, 58 FR 43752 (August 17, 

1993). On August 1, 2008, the 

Department published a notice of 

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review’’ of this countervailing duty 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 44966 (August 1, 2008). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice 

of initiation of the administrative review 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES