67444 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

instructions for the companies subject to 

this review directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of the final results 

of this review. 

With respect to Agro Dutch, we 

intend to calculate importer–specific 

assessment rates for the subject 

merchandise by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all of 

the U.S. sales examined and dividing 

this amount by the total entered value 

of the sales examined. We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 

See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final 

results of this review shall be the basis 

for the assessment of antidumping 

duties on entries of merchandise 

covered by the final results of this 

review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 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: (1) the 

cash deposit rate for the reviewed 

company will be that established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 

therefore, de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; (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 original 

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 

merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 11.30 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation (see 

Notice of Amendment of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From India, 64 FR 8311 (February 19, 

1999)). These requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review. 

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 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22142 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–580–813 

Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings 

from Korea: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request by 

Sungkwang Bend Company Ltd. (SKBC), 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of stainless 

steel butt–weld pipe fittings from Korea. 

The review covers one firm, SKBC. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2004, through January 31, 2005. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings 

from Korea have not been made below 

normal value (NV) for SKBC. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of administrative review, 

we will instruct Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to not assess 

antidumping duties based on the 

difference between constructed export 

price (CEP) and NV. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to also submit: 1) a statement 

of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the 

argument, and 3) a table of authorities. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Room 7866, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4475 or 

(202) 482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 23, 1993, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings 

from Korea. See Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt Weld 

Pipe Fittings from Korea, 58 FR 11029 

(February 23, 1993). On February 28, 

2005, SKBC requested an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel butt- weld pipe fittings 

from Korea in response to the 

Department’s notice of opportunity to 

request a review published in the 

Federal Register. The Department 

initiated the review for SKBC on March 

23, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

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

On March 31, 2005, the Department 

issued sections A, B, and C of the 

antidumping questionnaire to SKBC. 

SKBC filed its response to section A of 

our questionnaire on May 9, 2005. On 

May 27, 2005, SKBC filed its response 

to sections B and C of our questionnaire. 

The Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to SKBC on July 25, 2005. 

SKBC filed its response to this 

questionnaire on August 16, 2005. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain welded stainless steel butt–

weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings), 

whether finished or unfinished, under 

14 inches in inside diameter. 

Pipe fittings are used to connect pipe 

sections in piping systems where 

conditions require welded connections. 

The subject merchandise can be used 

where one or more of the following 

conditions is a factor in designing the 

piping system: (1) corrosion of the 

piping system will occur if material 

other than stainless steel is used; (2) 

contamination of the material in the 

system by the system itself must be 

prevented; (3) high temperatures are 

present; (4) extreme low temperatures 

are present; (5) high pressures are 

contained within the system. 

Pipe fittings come in a variety of 

shapes, and the following five are the 

most basic: ‘‘elbows,’’ ‘‘tees,’’

‘‘reducers,’’ ‘‘stub ends,’’ and ‘‘caps.’’

The edges of finished fittings are 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67445 

beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted 

fittings are excluded from this review. 

The pipe fittings subject to this review 

are classifiable under subheading 

7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Product Comparison 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), we considered all stainless steel 

butt–weld pipe fittings covered by the 

‘‘Scope of the Antidumping Duty 

Order’’ section of this notice, supra, 

which were produced and sold by SKBC 

in the home market during the POR to 

be foreign like products for the purpose 

of determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales of stainless 

steel butt–weld pipe fittings. 

We relied on five characteristics to 

match U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

to comparison sales of the foreign like 

product: type, grade, seam, size, and 

schedule. Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the home 

market to compare to the U.S. sales, we 

compared U.S. sales to the next most 

similar foreign like product on the basis 

of the physical characteristics and 

reporting instructions listed in the 

antidumping questionnaire. We 

performed a difference in merchandise 

(DIFMER) test to ensure that all 

comparison matches had no more than 

a twenty percent difference in variable 

cost of manufacture to the merchandise 

sold in the United States. See 19 CFR 

§ 351.411(b) and Import Administration 

Policy Bulletin, No., 92.2 (July 29, 

1992). 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the home market at the same 

level of trade (LOT) as export price (EP) 

or the CEP. The NV LOT is that of the 

starting–price sales in the home market 

or, when NV is based on constructed 

value (CV), that of the sales from which 

we derive selling, general and 

administrative (SG&A) expenses and 

profit. For CEP, it is the level of the 

constructed sale from the exporter to an 

affiliated importer after the deductions 

required under section 772(d) of the 

Act. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than CEP, we examine 

stages in the marketing process and 

selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer. If the 

comparison–market sales are at a 

different LOT and the difference affects 

price comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison–market sales at the 

LOT of the export transaction, we make 

an LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 

sales, if the NV level is more remote 

from the factory than the CEP level 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 Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 

1997). 

SKBC reported one LOT in the home 

market, and contended that home 

market sales to distributors and end–

users were made at the same LOT. (See 

SKC May 9, 2005, response, at appendix 

A–3.) In its May 9, 2005, response, 

SKBC indicated that it performed 

similar levels of sales support (i.e., 

customer correspondence, order review 

and approval, customer assistance, 

technical advice, and freight and 

delivery arrangement) on its home–

market sales to distributors and to end–

users. We analyzed the information 

submitted by SKBC and determined that 

one LOT exists for SKBC’s sales in the 

home market. We also examined the 

CEP LOT (i.e., the constructed sale from 

SKBC to its U.S. affiliate, Sungkwang 

Bend America (SKBA)) and found that 

SKBC’s U.S. sales were made at the 

same LOT. 

Moreover, the HM LOT is more 

advanced in the chain of distribution 

than the CEP LOT. In its May 9, 2005, 

response, SKBC indicated that SKBA 

performed many of the same selling 

functions on SKBC’s CEP sales that 

SKBC performed on its home market 

sales. We compared the CEP LOT (after 

deductions made pursuant to section 

772(d) of the Act) to the home market 

LOT. We determined that there were 

fewer services such as customer 

correspondence, order review and 

approval, post sales service/warranties, 

technical advice, advertising, freight 

delivery arrangement, credit services 

and import document clearance, 

performed by SKBC on its CEP LOT 

than on SKBC’s home market LOT. See 

id. In addition, the differences in selling 

functions performed for home market 

and CEP LOTs indicate that the home 

market LOT involved a more advanced 

stage of distribution than the CEP LOT. 

See id. In the home market LOT, SKBC 

provided marketing further down the 

chain of distribution by providing 

certain downstream selling functions 

that are normally performed by service 

centers in the U.S. market (e.g., 

technical advice, credit and collection, 

etc.). See id. 

Based on our analysis of the record 

evidence on selling functions performed 

for the CEP LOT and the home market 

LOT, we determined the CEP and the 

starting price of home market sales 

represent different stages in the 

marketing process, and are thus at 

different LOTs within the meaning of 19 

CFR § 351.412. Therefore, when we 

compared CEP sales to home market 

sales, we examined whether an LOT 

adjustment may be appropriate. In this 

case, SKBC sold at one LOT in the home 

market; thus, there is no basis upon 

which to determine whether there is a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between LOTs. Thus, while SKBC 

cooperated to the best of its ability, the 

data available do not provide an 

appropriate basis to determine whether 

the difference in level of trade affected 

price comparability. Further, we do not 

have the information which would 

allow us to examine pricing patterns of 

SKBC’s sales of other similar products, 

and there are no other respondents or 

other record evidence on which such an 

analysis could be based. 

Because the data available do not 

provide an appropriate basis for making 

an LOT adjustment and the LOT of 

home market sales is at a more 

advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP 

sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in 

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act, as claimed by SKBC. We based 

the amount of the CEP offset on the 

amount of home market indirect selling 

expenses, and limited the deduction for 

home market indirect selling expenses 

to the amount of indirect selling 

expenses deducted from CEP in 

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

the Act. We applied the CEP offset to 

NV, whether based on home market 

prices or CV. 

Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise made by SKBC were made 

at less than fair value, we compared the 

CEP to the NV as described below. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Act, we compared the CEP of individual 

U.S. transactions to the monthly 

weight–averaged NV of the foreign like 

product. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP 

as ‘‘the price at which the subject 

67446 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) in the United States before or after 

the date of importation by or for the 

account of the producer or exporter of 

such merchandise or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter . . .’’ as adjusted 

under subsections (c) and (d). For 

purposes of this administrative review, 

SKBC classified all of its U.S. sales as 

CEP transactions. Based on the record 

evidence, we preliminarily determine 

that SKBC’s U.S. sales through its U.S. 

affiliate, SKBA, were made ‘‘in the 

United States’’ within the meaning of 

section 772(b) of the Act, and thus have 

been appropriately classified by SKBC 

as CEP transactions. 

We based CEP on packed prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We also made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 

included foreign inland freight, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

brokerage charges, U.S. inland freight 

and U.S. customs duties. As further 

directed by section 772(d)(1) of the Act, 

we deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including billing adjustments and direct 

selling expenses (i.e., credit expenses, 

technical service expenses, and bank 

charges), inventory carrying costs, and 

other indirect selling expenses. We also 

made an adjustment for profit in 

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act. 

Normal Value 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine 

whether there was sufficient volume of 

sales in the home market to serve as a 

viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product is greater 

than or equal to five percent of the 

aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 

compared SKBC’s volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise. Because SKBC’s aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product was greater than 

five percent of its aggregate volume of 

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, 

we determined that the home market 

was viable. We therefore based NV on 

home market sales to unaffiliated 

purchasers made in the usual 

commercial quantities and in the 

normal course of trade. 

We made adjustments, where 

applicable, for movement expenses 

(consisting of inland freight) in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of 

the Act. In accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

§ 351.410, we made circumstance of sale 

adjustments for imputed credit, 

warranty, bank charges, and technical 

service expenses. In addition, we made 

adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise (i.e., DIFMER adjustments) 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR § 351.410. We also 

made an adjustment, in accordance with 

19 CFR § 351.410(e), for indirect selling 

expenses incurred in the home market 

where commissions were granted on 

sales in the United States. As noted in 

the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section of this 

notice, we also made an adjustment for 

the CEP offset in accordance with 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Finally, 

we deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the 

Act. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales 

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find the weighted–average 

dumping margin for the period February 

1, 2004, through January 31, 2005, to be 

as follows: 

Manufacturer / Exporter 

Weighted 

Average 

Margin 

(percentage) 

Sungkwang Bend Company Ltd. 

(SKBC) .................................... 0.17 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.224(b). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication. 

See 19 CFR § 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will be held 37 days after the 

date of publication, or the first business 

day thereafter, unless the Department 

alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 

§ 351.310(d). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs or written comments 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 

to written comments, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs and comments, 

may be filed no later than 35 days after 

the date of publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR § 351.309(d)(2). Parties who 

submit arguments in these proceedings 

are requested to submit with the 

argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) 

a brief summary of the argument, and 3) 

a table of authorities. Further, parties 

submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, 

and written comments are requested to 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of the public version of 

any such argument on diskette. The 

Department will issue final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of the issues 

in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, 

and written comments, or at a hearing, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit 

Requirements 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department calculates an assessment 

rate for each importer of the subject 

merchandise for each respondent. Upon 

issuance of the final results of this 

administrative review, if any importer–

specific assessment rates calculated in 

the final results are above de minimis 

(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the 

Department will issue appraisement 

instructions directly to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries. 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates covering the period 

were de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

§ 351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we 

calculate importer (or customer)-specific 

ad valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to that importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total value 

of the sales to that importer (or 

customer). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, and the 

respondent has reported reliable entered 

values, we apply the assessment rate to 

the entered value of the importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the review 

period. Where an importer (or 

customer)- specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis and we do not 

have entered values, we calculate a per–

unit assessment rate by aggregating the 

dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to 

each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to the importer (or 

customer). 

The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. Furthermore, the following 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67447 

1The merchandise subject to the scope of these 

orders was originally classifiable under all of the 

following HTS subheadings: 7221.00.0005, 

7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030, 

7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0060, 

7221.00.0075, and 7221.00.0080. HTSUS 

subheadings 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0040, 

7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0080 are no longer contained 

in the HTSUS. 

deposit requirements will be effective 

upon completion of the final results of 

this administrative review for all 

shipments of stainless steel butt–weld 

pipe fittings from Korea entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

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

1) The cash deposit rate for the 

reviewed company will be the rate 

established in the final results of review 

except if a rate is less than 0.50 percent, 

and therefore de minimis within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1) in 

which case the cash deposit rate will be 

zero; 

2) For any previously reviewed or 

investigated company not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published in 

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 merchandise; and 

4) If neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 

any previous review conducted by the 

Department, the cash deposit rate will 

be the ‘‘all others’’ rate from the LTFV 

investigation (21.2 percent). See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value; Certain Welded 

Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Korea, 58 FR 11029 (February 23, 

1993). 

Notice 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 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent 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 Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22139 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–351–819, A–427–811, A–533–808) 

Stainless Steel Wire Rods from Brazil, 

France, and India; Notice of Final 

Results of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews 

of 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 stainless steel wire rods from Brazil, 

France and India, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). On the basis of 

notices of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department has conducted expedited 

sunset reviews of these antidumping 

duty orders. As a result of these sunset 

reviews, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would likely lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the level 

indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Reviews’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline 

Arrowsmith or Dana Mermelstein, 

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–5255 or (202) 482–1391, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 1993, the Department 

published the Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 

India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993). 

On January 28, 1994, the Department 

published the Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from 

Brazil, 59 FR 4021 and the Amended 

Final Determination and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire 

Rods from France, 59 FR 4022. On 

August 2, 2000, the Department 

published the Continuation of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless 

Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, and 

India, 65 FR 47403. 

On July 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated the second sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

stainless steel wire rods from Brazil, 

France and India, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 38101 

(July 1, 2005). The Department received 

a notice of intent to participate from 

Carpenter Technology Corporation, 

Charter Specialty Steel, and Universal & 

Alloy Products, Inc. (collectively, the 

domestic interested parties), within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as U.S. producers of the 

domestic like product. 

We received a complete substantive 

response to the notice of initiation from 

the domestic interested parties within 

the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no 

responses from respondent interested 

parties to this proceeding. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted expedited 

sunset reviews of these orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

Imports covered by these orders are 

certain stainless steel wire rods (SSWR) 

from Brazil, France and India. SSWR are 

products which are hot–rolled or hot–

rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, 

squares, octagons, hexagons, or other 

shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy 

steels containing, by weight 1.2 percent 

or less of carbon and 10.5 percent of 

chromium, with or without other 

elements. These products are only 

manufactured by hot–rolling and 

normally sold in coiled form, and are 

solid cross-section. The majority of 

SSWR sold in the United States are 

round in cross-section shape, annealed 

and pickled. The most common size is 

5.5 millimeters in diameter. 

The merchandise subject to these 

orders is currently classifiable under 

subheadings 7221.00.0005, 

7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 

7221.00.0045, 7221.00.0075 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS).1 The HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision