67428 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

outside the scope of the order. See 

Notice of Scope Rulings, 63 FR 29700 

(June 1, 1998). On September 15, 1997, 

the Department determined in response 

to Nadel Trading Corporation that a 

plastic ‘‘quasi–mechanical’’ pencil 

known as the Bensia pencil was outside 

the scope of the order. See Notice of 

Scope Rulings, 62 FR 62288 (November 

21, 1997). 

Analysis of Comments Received: 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (Decision 

Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 31, 2005, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in room B–099 of the main 

Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review: 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on cased 

pencils from the PRC would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weighted–

average percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weighted–

Average 

Margin 

(percent) 

China First Pencil Co., Ltd./ 

Three Star Stationery Industry 

Co.1 ......................................... 8.60 

Shanghai Lansheng Corp. .......... 19.36 

Shanghai Foreign Trade Corp. ... 11.15 

Guangdong Provincial Stationery 

& Sporting Goods Import & 

Export Corp.2 .......................... 53.65 

PRC–Wide Rate ......................... 53.65 

1The Department determined that China 

First Pencil Co. Ltd. and Three Star Stationery 

Industry Co. (Three Star) should be treated as 

a single entity in the December 1, 1999 

through November 30, 2000 review. See Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic 

of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

67 FR 48612 (July 25, 2002) (1999-2000 Final 

Results) and amended final results at 67 FR 

59049 (September 19, 2002). 

2The Department originally excluded from 

the order exports made by Guangdong Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export Corp. (Guangdong) and produced by 

Three Star. However, the Department determined in the 1999-2000 review that the 

Guangdong/Three Star sales chain was no 

longer excluded from the order, and that all 

merchandise exported by Guangdong was 

subject to the cash deposit requirements at 

the PRC-wide rate. See 1999-2000 Final 

Results. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22138 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–580–836) 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon–Quality 

Steel Plate Products From the 

Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results 

and Rescission in Part of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department ofCommerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests by a 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise and a domestic interested 

party, the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain cut–

to-length carbon–quality steel plate 

products (steel plate) from the Republic 

of Korea (Korea). This review covers one 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise. The period of review 

(POR) is February 1, 2004, through 

January 31, 2005. 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined that the company subject to 

this review made U.S. sales at prices 

less than normal value (NV). 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 will issue the final results of 

review no later than 120 days from the 

publication date of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Magd Zalok or Malcolm Burke, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

3584, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review’’ of the 

antidumping duty order on steel plate 

from Korea. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 70 

FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). In 

accordance with 19 CFR § 351.213(b)(2), 

during February 2005, Dongkuk Steel 

Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), a producer/ 

exporter, requested that the Department 

conduct an administrative review of its 

sales and entries of subject merchandise 

into the United Stated during the POR. 

Additionally, in accordance with 19 

CFR § 351.213(b)(1), on February 28, 

2005, a domestic interested party, Nucor 

Corporation (Nucor), requested that the 

Department conduct a review of DSM; 

Korea Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO); 

and Union Steel Manufacturing Co. 

(USMC). On March 23, 2005, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review of DSM, KISCO, and USMC. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). 

On March 9, 2005, the Department 

issued its antidumping questionnaire to 

DSM, KISCO, and USMC. On April 15, 

2005, USMC informed the Department 

that it had no sales or shipments of the 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

On May 3, 2005, KISCO informed the 

Department that it had no sales or 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

during the POR. In April and May 2005, 

DSM responded to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. 

Subsequently, the Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to DSM. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67429 

During this administrative review, 

Nucor and one of the petitioners in this 

proceeding, IPSCO Steel Inc., submitted 

comments regarding the respondent’s 

questionnaire and supplemental 

questionnaire responses. 

The Department is conducting this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2004, through 

January 31, 2005. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

antidumping duty order are certain hot–

rolled carbon–quality steel: (1) 

Universal mill plates (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 nominal or actual thickness of 

not less than 4 mm, which are cut–tolength (not in coils) and without 

patterns in relief), of iron or non–alloyquality steel; and (2) flat–rolled 

products, hot–rolled, of a nominal or 

actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and 

of a width which exceeds 150 mm and 

measures at least twice the thickness, 

and which are cut–to-length (not in 

coils). Steel products to be included in 

the scope of the order are of rectangular, 

square, circular or other shape and of 

rectangular or non–rectangular crosssection where such non–rectangular 

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. Steel 

products that meet the noted physical 

characteristics that are painted, 

varnished or coated with plastic or other 

non–metallic substances are included 

within this scope. Also, specifically 

included in the scope of the order are 

high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. 

HSLA steels are recognized as steels 

with micro–alloying levels of elements 

such as chromium, copper, niobium, 

titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. 

Steel products to be included in this 

scope, 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 two percent or less, by 

weight, and (3) none of the elements 

listed below is equal to or 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 0.10 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 zirconium. All products that 

meet the written physical description, 

and in which the chemistry quantities 

do not equal or exceed any one of the 

levels listed above, are within the scope 

of the order unless otherwise 

specifically excluded. The following 

products are specifically excluded from 

the order: (1) Products clad, plated, or 

coated with metal, whether or not 

painted, varnished or coated with 

plastic or other non–metallic 

substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly 

AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; 

(3) products made to ASTM A710 and 

A736 or their proprietary equivalents; 

(4) abrasion–resistant steels (i.e., USS 

AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) products 

made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade 

S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary 

equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) 

tool steels; and (8) silicon manganese 

steel or silicon electric steel. Imports of 

steel plate are currently classified in the 

HTSUS under subheadings: 

7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 

7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 

7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 

7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 

7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 

7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 

7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 

7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 

7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 

7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and CBP 

purposes. The written description of the 

merchandise covered by the order is 

dispositive. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

As noted above, USMC and KISCO 

informed the Department that they had 

no shipments of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. CBP 

data indicates that there were no entries 

of subject merchandise from USMC or 

KISCO during the POR. See the 

September 30, 2005, memorandum, 

Factual Information Regarding Lack of 

Entries of Subject Merchandise 

Produced by USMC and KISCO to the 

File from the Team, which is available 

in the Central Records Unit (CRU) room 

B099 in the main Department building. 

No parties have submitted any 

information that calls into question the 

no shipment claims of USMC and 

KISCO. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR § 351.213(d)(3), and consistent 

with the Department’s practice, we are 

rescinding this review with respect to 

USMC and KISCO. See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 

Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, and Determination Not 

To Revoke in Part, 68 FR 53127, 53128 

(September 9, 2003). 

Duty Absorption 

On March 28, 2005, Nucor requested 

that the Department make a duty 

absorption determination with respect 

to each respondent. Section 751(a)(4) of 

the Act provides that the Department, if 

requested, shall determine during an 

administrative review initiated two or 

four years after the publication of the 

order, ‘‘whether antidumping duties 

have been absorbed by a foreign 

producer or exporter. . . if the subject 

merchandise is sold in the United 

States’’ through an affiliated importer. 

Because the order on steel plate from 

Korea was published on February 10, 

2000, and this review was initiated five 

years thereafter (on March 23, 2005), 

this review was not initiated two or four 

years after the publication of the order. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 751(a)(4) 

of the Act, the Department will not 

make a duty absorption determination 

in this review. 

Affiliation 

During the POR, DSM sold steel plate 

to Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (DKI ), 

a Korean trading company, which, in 

turn, resold the steel plate to 

unaffiliated parties in third country 

markets. Additionally, DSM reported 

that DKI formed a home market 

subsidiary to which it sold steel plate 

during the instant POR. The Department 

has preliminarily determined that DSM 

and DKI are under the common control 

of a family grouping, and thus, are 

affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(F) 

of the Act (which states that two or 

more persons directly or indirectly 

controlling, controlled by, or under 

common control with, any person shall 

be considered affiliates). Therefore, in 

these preliminary results, the 

Department has treated DSM and DKI as 

affiliated parties. In addition, because 

the family grouping noted above is also 

in a position to legally and operationally 

control DKI’s subsidiary, in these 

preliminary results the Department has 

considered the subsidiary and DSM to 

be affiliated parties. For a complete 

discussion of this issue see the 

Memorandum from Malcolm Burke to 

the File, dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

67430 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

1See Notice of Amended Final Determinations: 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 

From India and the Republic of Korea; and Notice 

of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From 

France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the 

Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000). 

Overrun Sales 

DSM reported home market sales of 

‘‘overrun’’ merchandise (i.e., sales of a 

greater quantity of steel plate than the 

customer ordered due to 

overproduction). Section 773(a)(1)(B) of 

the Act provides that NV shall be based 

on the price at which the foreign like 

product is first sold, inter alia, in the 

ordinary course of trade. Section 

771(15) of the Act defines ‘‘ordinary 

course of trade’’ as the ‘‘conditions and 

practices which, for a reasonable time 

prior to the exportation of the subject 

merchandise, have been normal in the 

trade under consideration with respect 

to merchandise of the same class or 

kind.’’ In past cases, the Department has 

examined certain factors to determine 

whether ‘‘overrun’’ sales are in the 

ordinary course of trade. See, e.g. 

Certain Steel Products from Brazil, 64 

FR 38756, 38770 (July 19, 1999). These 

factors include: (1) whether the 

merchandise is ‘‘off–quality’’ or 

produced according to unusual 

specifications; (2) the comparative 

volume of sales and the number of 

buyers in the home market; (3) the 

average quantity of an overrun sale 

compared to the average quantity of a 

commercial sale; and (4) price and profit 

differentials in the home market. Based 

on our analysis of these factors and the 

terms of sale, we preliminarily 

determine that DSM’s overrun sales 

have characteristics that are not 

ordinary as compared to DSM’s other 

home market sales of steel plate. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that DSM’s overrun sales are outside the 

ordinary course of trade. Because our 

analysis makes use of business 

proprietary information, we have 

included the analysis in a separate 

memorandum. See Memorandum to the 

File from the Team concerning Overrun 

Sales Analysis: Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., 

Ltd., dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

Comparison Methodology 

In order to determine whether DSM 

sold steel plate in the United States at 

prices less than NV, the Department 

compared the constructed export price 

(CEP) of individual U.S. sales to the 

monthly weighted–average NV of sales 

of the foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. See section 

777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. In accordance 

with section 771(16) of the Act, the 

Department considered all products 

within the scope of the order under 

review that the respondent sold in the 

comparison market during the POR to 

be foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to steel plate sold in the 

United States. The Department 

compared U.S. sales to sales made in the 

comparison market within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

to, to two months after, the month in 

which the U.S. sale is made. Where 

there were no sales of identical 

merchandise made in the comparison 

market in the ordinary course of trade, 

the Department compared U.S. sales to 

sales of the most similar foreign like 

product made in the ordinary course of 

trade. In making product comparisons, 

the Department selected identical and 

most similar foreign like products based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by DSM in the following order of 

importance: painted, quality, 

specification, heat treatments, thickness, 

width, patterns in relief, and descaling. 

Constructed Export Price 

The Department based the price of 

each of DSM’s U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise on CEP, as defined in 

section 772(b) of the Act, because the 

merchandise was sold, before 

importation, by a seller affiliated with 

the producer, to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States. We calculated CEP 

using delivered prices charged to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States. In accordance with sections 

772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d) of the Act, in 

calculating CEP, we made deductions 

from the starting price for foreign and 

U.S. brokerage and handling, foreign 

and U.S. inland freight, international 

freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, 

direct and indirect selling expenses, to 

the extent they are associated with 

economic activity in the United States, 

and CEP profit. The direct selling 

expenses included credit expenses and 

commission expenses. Finally, pursuant 

to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we 

increased U.S. price by the amount of 

the export subsidy found in the 

countervailing duty investigation on 

steel plate from Korea.1

Normal Value 

After testing home market viability, 

whether home market sales to affiliates 

were at arm’s length prices, and whether 

home market sales were at below–cost 

prices, we calculated NV for DSM as 

noted in the ‘‘Price–to-Price 

Comparisons’’ section of this notice. 

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 in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared the 

aggregate volume of DSM’s home market 

sales of the foreign like product to the 

aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise. Because the 

aggregate volume of DSM’s home market 

sales of foreign like product exceeds five 

percent of the aggregate volume of its 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we 

based NV on sales of the foreign like 

product in DSM’s home market. See 

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

B. Affiliated–Party Transactions and 

Arm’s–Length Test 

DSM reported that it made home 

market sales to affiliated and 

unaffiliated end users and distributors/ 

retailers. The Department may calculate 

NV based on sales to an affiliated party 

only if it is satisfied that the prices 

charged to the affiliated party are 

comparable to the prices at which sales 

were made to parties not affiliated with 

the producer, i.e., sales at arm’s–length. 

See section 773(f)(2) of the Act and 19 

CFR § 351.403(c). Where we found the 

home market prices charged to an 

affiliated customer not to be arm’s–

length prices, we excluded sales to the 

affiliated customer from our analysis. To 

test whether DSM’s sales to affiliates 

were made at arm’s–length prices, the 

Department compared the starting 

prices of sales to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers, net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, and packing costs. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR § 351.403(c), and in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, when the prices charged to 

affiliated parties were, on average, 

between 98 and 102 percent of the 

prices charged to unaffiliated parties for 

merchandise comparable to that sold to 

the affiliated party, we determine that 

the sales to the affiliated party were at 

arm’s–length prices. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (November 15, 2002). DSM’s 

affiliated home market customers did 

not pass the arm’s–length test. 

Therefore, we have excluded these sales 

from our analysis. 

C. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 

In the most recently completed 

administrative review, the Department 

determined that DSM sold foreign like 

product at prices below the cost of 

producing the merchandise and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67431 

2The NV LOT is based on selling activities 

reflected in the starting-price of the sales in the 

comparison market. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is 

based on the selling activities reflected in the price 

after deducting expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. 

3There is only one LOT in the home market and 

no other information which would allow the 

Department to examine DSM’s pricing patterns with 

respect to product lines that are different from, or 

broader than, the steel plate product line. 

excluded such sales from the 

calculation of NV. As a result, the 

Department determined that there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that during the instant POR, DSM sold 

the foreign like product at prices below 

the cost of producing the merchandise. 

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

Therefore, the Department initiated a 

sales below cost inquiry with respect to 

DSM. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, for each unique foreign like 

product sold by DSM during the POR, 

we calculated a weighted–average COP 

based on the sum of the respondent’s 

materials and fabrication costs and 

selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, including interest 

expenses, and packing costs. We relied 

on the costs submitted by DSM except 

for the following items, which we 

revised based upon our review of DSM’s 

questionnaire responses: ceratin inputs 

purchased from affiliates and interest 

expense. For details regarding these 

revisions, see the memorandum 

regarding cost of production 

adjustments for the preliminary results, 

dated concurrently with this notice. 

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices 

In order to determine whether sales 

were made at prices below the COP, on 

a product–specific basis, we compared 

DSM’s weighted–average COPs, 

adjusted as noted above, to the prices of 

its home market sales of foreign like 

product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act. In accordance with 

sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B), 

respectively, of the Act, in determining 

whether to disregard home market sales 

made at prices less than the COP, we 

examined whether such sales were 

made: (1) in substantial quantities 

within an extended period of time; and 

(2) at prices which permitted the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We compared the COP 

to home market sales prices, less 

applicable discounts or rebates, selling 

expenses, and movement charges. 

3. 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 made 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.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product were made at prices less than 

the COP during the POR, we determined 

such sales to have been made in 

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an 

extended period of time (i.e., one year) 

pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(C) and (B) 

of the Act. Based on our comparison of 

POR average costs to reported prices, we 

also determined, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that 

certain sales were made at prices which 

would not permit recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. As 

a result, we disregarded such below–

cost sales. 

Price–to-Price Comparisons 

We calculated NVs for DSM based on 

the prices at which the foreign like 

product was first sold for consumption 

in the home market, in the usual 

commercial quantities, in the ordinary 

course of trade, and, to the extent 

possible, at the same level of trade 

(LOT) as the comparison U.S. sale. See 

section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. In 

calculating NVs, where appropriate, we 

increased the reported home market 

sales prices by the interest and duty 

drawback revenue that DSM received 

from its customers and decreased the 

prices by movement expenses incurred 

by DSM. In addition, we adjusted the 

reported home market sales prices to: (1) 

account for differences between packing 

costs and credit and other direct selling 

expenses incurred with respect to 

transactions in the U.S. and home 

markets; (2) account for differences 

between the physical characteristics of 

the merchandise sold in comparable 

transactions in the U.S. and home 

markets; and, (3) to make a reasonable 

allowance for other selling expenses 

where commissions were paid in only 

one of the markets being compared. See 

section 773 (a)(6) of the Act and 19 CFR 

§ 351.410 (e). 

Level of Trade 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than the CEP sales,2 we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. See section 

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

market sales are at a different LOT, and 

the difference affects price 

comparability, as manifested by a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and home market sales at the LOT of the 

export transaction, we make a LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. In determining whether 

separate LOTs exist, we obtained 

information from DSM regarding the 

marketing stages for the reported U.S. 

and home market sales, including a 

description of the selling activities 

performed by DSM for each channel of 

distribution. Generally, if the reported 

LOTs are the same, the functions and 

activities of the seller at each level 

should be similar. Conversely, if a party 

reports that LOTs are different for 

different groups of sales, the selling 

functions and activities of the seller for 

each group should be dissimilar. See 19 

CFR § 351.412(c)(2). For CEP sales, if 

the NV LOT is more remote from the 

factory than the CEP LOT and there is 

no basis for determining whether the 

difference in the levels between NV and 

CEP affects price comparability, we 

adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of 

the Act (the CEP offset provision). See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–toLength Carbon Steel Plate from South 

Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 

1997). 

DSM reported that it sold the 

merchandise under review to 

distributors and end users in the home 

market through one channel of 

distribution, and to distributors in the 

United States through another channel 

of distribution. See DSM’s April 29, 

2005, and May 6, 2005, questionnaire 

responses at 13–14 and 11–12, 

respectively. In the home market 

channel of distribution, DSM engaged in 

the same selling activities for all sales. 

Likewise, in the U.S. channel of 

distribution, DSM engaged in the same 

selling activities for all sales. Because 

the single sales channel in the United 

States involves the same selling 

functions for all sales, and the single 

sales channel in the home market also 

involves the same selling functions for 

all sales, we have preliminarily 

determined that there is one LOT in the 

United States and one LOT in the home 

market. Moreover, because the selling 

functions and activities performed by 

DSM with respect to its home market 

sales were significantly dissimilar from 

those performed for its U.S. sales, we 

have preliminarily determined that, 

during the POR, DSM sold foreign like 

product at a different LOT than it sold 

subject merchandise. However, because 

no appropriate basis exists to determine 

whether the difference between the U.S. 

and home market LOTs affects price 

comparability,3 we did not make a level 

67432 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

of trade adjustment. Nevertheless, we 

considered whether home market sales 

were at a more advanced LOT than the 

CEP sales, thus warranting a CEP offset 

under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. In 

order to determine whether NV is at a 

more advanced LOT than the CEP 

transactions, the Department compared 

home market selling activities with 

those for CEP transactions after 

deducting the expenses identified in 

section 772(d) of the Act. After making 

these deductions, the Department 

determined that the differences between 

the home and U.S. market selling 

activities support a finding that DSM’s 

sales in the home market were at a more 

advanced LOT than the CEP sales. See 

Memorandum from Malcolm Burke to 

the File, concerning Level of Trade and 

CEP Offset Analysis, dated concurrently 

with this notice. Thus, in calculating 

NV, we reduced DSM’s home market 

sales prices in accordance with the CEP 

offset provision. 

Currency Conversion 

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the 

Act, 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 this review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted- average dumping 

margin exists for the period February 1, 

2004, through January 31, 2005: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) 

Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 0.51 

Public Comment 

Within 10 days of publicly 

announcing the preliminary results of 

this review, we will disclose, to 

interested parties, any calculations 

performed in connection with the 

preliminary results. See 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(c). If 

requested, a hearing will be held 44 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register, or the 

first workday thereafter. 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. Also, 

interested parties may file rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs. 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: (1) a statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and, (3) a table of authorities 

cited. Further, the Department requests 

that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

a diskette containing the public version 

of those comments. Unless the deadline 

for issuing the final results of review is 

extended, the Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in the written 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Assessment Rates 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

§ 351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary 

results of review we calculated 

importer–specific assessment rates for 

DSM’s subject merchandise. Within 15 

days of publication of the final results 

of review, the Department will issue 

instructions to CBP directing it to assess 

the final importer–specific assessment 

rates (if above de minimis) uniformly on 

the entered value of all entries of subject 

merchandise made by the relevant 

importer during the POR. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act. In the 

instant matter: (1) the cash deposit rate 

for the reviewed company will be the 

rate established in the final results of 

this review (except that if that rate is de 

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no 

cash deposit will be required); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed 

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 

(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) the 

cash deposit rate for all other 

manufacturers or exporters will 

continue to be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 

0.98 percent, which is the ‘‘all others’’

rate established in the LTFV 

investigation, adjusted for the export 

subsidy rate in the companion 

countervailingduty investigation. These 

cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act. 

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 the antidumping 

duties occurred and the concomitant 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22137 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–357–802, A–583–803) 

Light–Walled Welded Rectangular 

Carbon Steel Tubing from Argentina 

and Taiwan; Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated the second sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on light–walled welded rectangular 

carbon steel tubing from Argentina and 

Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

On the basis of a notice of intent to 

participate and adequate substantive 

responses filed on behalf of domestic 

interested parties and no responses from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted expedited (120- 

day) sunset reviews. See section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act. As a result of 

these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would lead (or likely lead)