5794 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–922 

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Raw Flexible Magnets 

from the People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Blackledge or Shawn Higgins, 

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) 482–3518 or (202) 482–

0679, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

On October 18, 2007, the Department 

of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) 

initiated the antidumping duty 

investigation of raw flexible magnets 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations: Raw Flexible 

Magnets from the People’s Republic of 

China and Taiwan, 72 FR 59071 (July 

24, 2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The 

notice of initiation stated that, unless 

postponed, the Department would make 

its preliminary determination in these 

antidumping duty investigations no 

later than 140 days after the date of the 

initiation. See Initiation Notice. 

On January 16, 2008, Magnum 

Magnetics Corporation (‘‘Petitioner’’) 

made a timely request pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty–day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination in this investigation. 

Petitioner requested postponement of 

the preliminary determination because 

of the complexity of the case, the 

Department’s unfamiliarity with the 

industry, and the difficult time schedule 

ahead.For the reasons identified by the 

Petitioner, and because there are no 

compelling reasons to deny the request, 

the Department is postponing the 

preliminary determination under 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), by fifty 

days from February 29, 2008 to April 19, 

2008. However, as that date falls on a 

Saturday, the preliminary determination 

will be due no later than the next 

business day, Monday, April 21, 2008. 

The deadline for the final determination 

will continue to be 75 days after the 

date of the preliminary determination, 

unless extended. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 

Dated: January 24, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–1759 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–859] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube From the Republic of Korea 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (the Department) 

preliminarily determines that lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube from 

the Republic of Korea is being, or is 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 

in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

listed in the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. Pursuant to a request 

from Nexteel Co., Ltd. (Nexteel), we are 

postponing for 60 days the final 

determination and extending 

provisional measures from a four-month 

period to not more than six months. 

Accordingly, we will make our final 

determination not later than 135 days 

after publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell, (Kukje Steel Co., Ltd.), 

Mark Flessner (Nexteel Co., Ltd.), or 

Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 7, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0408, (202) 482–6312, or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 17, 2007, the Department 

initiated the antidumping duty 

investigation of light-walled rectangular 

pipe and tube from the Republic of 

Korea. See Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations: Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and 

the People’s Republic of China, 

(Initiation Notice), 72 FR 40274 (July 24, 

2007). The Petitioners in this 

investigation are Allied Tube and 

Conduit, Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube 

Company, California Steel and Tube, 

EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt 

Tube Company, Maruichi American 

Corporation, Searing Industries, 

Southland Tube, Vest Inc., Welded 

Tube, and Western Tube and Conduit 

(Petitioners). 

The Department set aside a period of 

time for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments. See 

Initiation Notice, 72 FR 40274, 40275 

(July 24, 2007). No party submitted 

comments on the scope. 

On August 28, 2007, the United States 

International Trade Commission (the 

Commission) preliminarily determined 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of light-walled rectangular pipe 

and tube from Korea, Mexico and 

Turkey are materially injuring the U.S. 

industry and notified the Department of 

its findings. See Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From China, 

Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–449 and 

731–TA–1118–1121 (Preliminary), 72 

FR 49310 (August 28, 2007). 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act 

directs the Department to calculate 

individual dumping margins for each 

known exporter and producer of the 

subject merchandise. The Department 

identified a large number of producers 

and exporters of light-walled 

rectangular pipe and tube from the 

Republic of Korea (Korea) and 

determined that it was not practicable to 

examine each known exporter/producer 

of the subject merchandise, as provided 

in section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act. 

The Department sent quantity and value 

(Q&V) questionnaires to the companies 

identified in the petition, as well as to 

other companies identified during our 

analysis. On July 31, 2007, the 

Department sent Q&V questionnaires to 

the following companies: Ahshin Pipe & 

Tube, Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., Han 

Gyu Rae Steel, Co., Ltd., HiSteel Co. 

Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, 

Kukje Steel Co. (Kukje), Ltd., Miju Steel 

Mfg. Co. Ltd., Nexteel, SeAH Steel 

Corporation, Ltd. (SeAH), and Yujin 

Steel Industry Co. 

Ahshin Pipe & Tube mailed its 

response by first class mail dated 

August 20, 2007, but that letter was not 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5795 

1The Department sent its questionnaires and its 

follow up letter via an international delivery 

service. Records show each of the companies in 

question received and signed for the July 31, 2007, 

quantity and value questionnaire and the August 

16, 2007, follow-up letter. 

submitted as required through our 

Central Records Unit, did not include a 

complete response to the Department’s 

Q&V questionnaire or include the 

required certifications, and was not 

served on all interested parties. 

Consequently, the response did not 

comport with 19 CFR 351.103, 

351.302(d)(1), 351.303(f)(2) and 

351.303(g), and was returned to Ahshin 

Pipe & Tube on September 7, 2007. 

On August 27, 2007 and September 

28, 2007, the Department requested that 

Han Gyu Rae Steel Co., Ltd., (Han Gyu 

Rae) resubmit its public version of its 

response to the Q&V questionnaire 

which it had submitted on August 17, 

2007, because a proper public version 

was not provided. In its September 28, 

2007, letter the Department warned Han 

Gyu Rae that it may not accept the 

response as currently filed and that the 

Department may apply facts available in 

accordance with section 776 of the 

Tariff Act, and pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.308. The Department received no 

reply from Han Gyu Rae and thus 

returned its August 17, 2007, 

submission on November 9, 2007. 

Furthermore, the Department did not 

receive any response at all to either its 

July 31, 2007, quantity and value 

questionnaire or its August 16, 2007, 

follow-up letter from the following 

companies: Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., 

HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., 

Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., 

and Yujin Steel Industry Co.1

Three respondents—SeAH, Kukje and 

Nexteel—responded to the Department’s 

Q&V questionnaire. Kukje and Nexteel 

accounted for the largest volume of 

subject merchandise exported to the 

United States during the period of 

investigation (POI). Hence, these two 

firms were selected as mandatory 

respondents pursuant to section 

777A(c)(2)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. See 

the September 5, 2007, Memorandum to 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Stephen J. 

Claeys, entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation on Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

Republic of Korea (Korea) (A–580–859), 

Respondent Selection’’ (Respondent 

Selection Memorandum). We issued 

antidumping questionnaires to Kukje 

and Nexteel on September 7, 2007. 

The Department received the Section 

A response from Kukje on October 5, 

2007, and from Nexteel on October 10, 

2007. Petitioners provided comments on 

Kukje’s and Nexteel’s Section A 

responses on October 16, 2007. On 

October 19, 2007, the Department issued 

Nexteel a supplemental questionnaire 

concerning its October 10, 2007, Section 

A response. On October 22, 2007, Kukje 

informed the Department that Kukje was 

unable to respond further to the 

antidumping questionnaire. We 

received the Sections B and C responses 

from Nexteel on October 29, 2007. 

Nexteel also responded voluntarily to 

Section D, Cost of Production, in this 

submission. 

On November 9, 2007, Petitioners 

provided comments on Nexteel’s 

Sections B and C response, and 

submitted a cost allegation with respect 

to Nexteel. On November 27, 2007, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Nexteel concerning 

Nexteel’s Sections B and C response, to 

which Nexteel responded on December 

19, 2007. 

On December 7, 2007, the Department 

initiated a cost investigation on Nexteel. 

See memorandum from Mark Flessner, 

Case Analyst, and Christopher J. Zimpo, 

Accountant, to Richard O. Weible, 

Director, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Petitioners’’

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for Nexteel Co. Ltd.,’’ dated 

December 7, 2007 (Cost Allegation 

Memorandum). On December 21, 2007, 

the Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Nexteel concerning 

Nexteel’s Section D response, to which 

Nexteel responded on January 10, 2008. 

On December 26, 2007, petitioners 

timely filed with the Department an 

allegation of targeted dumping for 

Nexteel. Nexteel filed comments 

regarding petitioners’ allegation on 

January 3, 2008. Upon review of 

petitioners’ allegation, the Department 

determined that further information was 

needed in order to adequately analyze 

petitioners’ allegation. The Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

petitioners on January 14, 2008, 

requesting that they address deficiencies 

identified by the Department. See Letter 

from Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 

7, to Petitioners, dated January 14, 2008. 

Because there was a need for 

supplemental information regarding the 

allegation, we do not have sufficient 

bases for making a finding of targeted 

dumping prior to the January 23, 2008, 

deadline for issuance of the preliminary 

determination. We intend to address the 

allegation in full upon receipt of a 

satisfactory response by Petitioners to 

our request for additional information. 

On October 19, 2007, the Petitioners 

requested the Department postpone the 

preliminary determination by 50 days 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e). The 

Department published a notice of 

postponement on November 14, 2007, 

which set the new deadline for the 

preliminary determination at January 

23, 2008. See Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from Mexico, Turkey, 

and the Republic of Korea: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 72 FR 64044 (November 

14, 2007). 

Period of Investigation 

The POI is April 1, 2006, to March 31, 

2007. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise that is the subject of 

this investigation is certain welded 

carbon quality light-walled steel pipe 

and tube, of rectangular (including 

square) cross section, having a wall 

thickness of less than 4 mm. 

The term carbon-quality steel 

includes both carbon steel and alloy 

steel which contains only small 

amounts of alloying elements. 

Specifically, the term carbon-quality 

includes products in which none of the 

elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity by weight respectively 

indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

2.25 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 0.15 percent vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. The 

description of carbon-quality is 

intended to identify carbon-quality 

products within the scope. The welded 

carbon-quality rectangular pipe and 

tube subject to this investigation is 

currently classified under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheadings 

7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Model Match 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Tariff Act, all products produced by 

the respondents covered by the 

description in the Scope of Investigation 

section, above, and sold in Korea during 

the POI are considered to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. 

On August 16, 2007, the Department 

asked all parties in the investigation of 

light-walled rectangular pipe and tube 

from the Republic of Korea and in the 

concurrent antidumping duty 

investigations of light-walled 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5796 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

2As noted earlier, the Department sent its 

quantity and value questionnaires and its follow up 

leeter via an international delivery service and 

records show that each of the companies in 

question received and signed for the July 31, 2007, 

rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, 

Turkey, and the People’s Republic of 

China, for comments on the appropriate 

product characteristics for defining 

individual products; parties in this 

investigation and in the concurrent 

antidumping duty investigations of 

light-walled rectangular pipe and tube 

from Mexico and Turkey were also 

invited to comment on the appropriate 

model matching methodology. See 

Letter from Richard Weible, Director, 

Office 7, dated August 16, 2007. The 

Department received comments from 

the Mexican company Perfiles y 

Herrajes LM on August 23, 2007; from 

the Mexican companies Productos 

Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. 

and Prolamsa USA, Inc. on August 24, 

2007 August 27, 2007 and September 4, 

2007; from the Turkish company Noksel 

Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. on August 24, 

2007; from the Chinese producer/ 

exporter Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan PipeMaking Co., Ltd.; and from the 

Petitioners on August 24, 2007. The 

Department did not make any changes 

to its proposed characteristics and 

model matching methodology as a result 

of the comments submitted by parties. 

We have relied on six criteria to 

match U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

to comparison market sales of the 

foreign like product: steel input type, 

whether metallic coated or not, whether 

painted or not, perimeter, wall thickness 

and shape. Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the home 

market made in the ordinary course of 

trade to compare to U.S. sales, we 

compared U.S. sales to the next most 

similar foreign like product on the basis 

of the characteristics listed above. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine the use of adverse facts 

available (AFA) is appropriate for the 

preliminary determination with respect 

to the following nine companies: DongA Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., 

Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju 

Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry 

Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae, 

and Kukje. As noted in the 

Supplementary Information section 

above, the first six companies failed to 

respond to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire and to the Department’s 

follow up letter of August 16, 2007. 

Ahshin Pipe & Tube submitted an 

improper, incomplete, and untimely 

Q&V questionnaire response that the 

Department returned; Han Gyu Rae 

failed to resubmit its August 17, 2007 

Q&V response and the Department 

returned Han Gyu Rae’s Q&V 

submission on November 9, 2007. On 

October 22, 2007, Kukje informed the 

Department that it was unable to 

respond further to the antidumping 

questionnaire. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act 

provides that, if an interested party 

withholds information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in 782(I), the 

administering authority shall use, 

subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff 

Act, facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Section 782(d) of the Tariff Act provides 

that, if the administering authority 

determines a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, the administering authority 

shall promptly inform the responding 

party and provide an opportunity to 

remedy the deficient submission. 

Section 782(e) of the Tariff Act states 

further that the Department shall not 

decline to consider submitted 

information if all of the following 

requirements are met: (1) The 

information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

In this case, Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. 

Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. 

Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. 

Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin 

Pipe & Tube, and Han Gyu Rae all failed 

to provide necessary information by the 

deadlines for submission of the 

information and/or in the form or 

manner requested. Thus, for these eight 

companies in reaching our preliminary 

determination, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff 

Act, we have based the dumping margin 

on facts otherwise available. 

Kukje, one of the mandatory 

respondents, did not provide pertinent 

information we requested that is 

necessary to calculate an antidumping 

margin for the preliminary 

determination. Specifically, Kukje failed 

to provide a complete response to our 

questionnaire, thereby withholding, 

among other things, home-market and 

U.S. sales information that is necessary 

for reaching the applicable 

determination, pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. Thus, in 

reaching our preliminary determination, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), 

and (C) of the Tariff Act, we have based 

the dumping margin for Kukje on facts 

otherwise available. 

Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

According to section 776(b) of the 

Tariff Act, if the Department finds that 

an interested party fails to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with requests for information, 

the Department may use an inference 

that is adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting from the facts 

otherwise available. See Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 

(September 13, 2005); see also Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August 

30, 2002). It is the Department’s practice 

to apply adverse inferences to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully. See, e.g., 

id. Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence 

of bad faith on the part of a respondent 

is not required before the Department 

may make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 

1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon); see 

also Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 

Korea: Final Results of the 2005–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 69663, 69664 (December 

10, 2007). 

Although the Department provided all 

respondents, including Dong-A Steel 

Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang 

Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel 

Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., 

Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae and 

Kukje, with notice informing them of 

the consequences of their failure to 

respond adequately to the questionnaire 

in this case, pursuant to section 782(d) 

of the Tariff Act, the companies listed 

above did not respond as requested. 

This constitutes a failure on the part of 

these companies to cooperate to the best 

of their ability to comply with a request 

for information by the Department 

within the meaning of section 776(b) of 

the Tariff Act.2 Based on the above, the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5797 

quantity and value questionnaire and the August 

16, 2007, follow-up letter. 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. 

Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. 

Ltd., Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. 

Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin 

Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje 

failed to cooperate to the best of their 

ability and, therefore, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value: Circular 

Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow 

Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985, 

42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department 

applied total AFA where the respondent 

failed to respond to the antidumping 

questionnaire). 

Selection and Corroboration of 

Information Used as Facts Available 

Where the Department applies AFA 

because a respondent failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information, 

section 776(b) of the Tariff Act 

authorizes the Department to rely on 

information derived from the petition, a 

final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

also 19 CFR 351.308(c). It is the 

Department’s practice to use the highest 

rate from the petition in an investigation 

when a respondent fails to act to the 

best of its ability to provide the 

necessary information. See, e.g., Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 

69 FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) 

(unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Purified 

Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 

70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). Therefore, 

because an adverse inference is 

warranted, we have assigned to Dong-A 

Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. Ltd., 

Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, Miju 

Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel Industry 

Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han Gyu Rae 

and Kukje the highest margin alleged in 

the petition, as referenced in the 

Initiation Notice, of 30.66 percent. See 

Initiation Notice at 40278. 

When using facts otherwise available, 

section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides 

that when the Department relies on 

secondary information (such as the 

petition) rather than on information 

obtained in the course of an 

investigation, it must corroborate, to the 

extent practicable, information from 

independent sources that are reasonably 

at its disposal. 

To ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1 (1994) at 

870 (SAA), reprinted in 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198–4199. As 

stated in Tapered Roller Bearings and 

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 

from Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

from Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged 

in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 

11825, 11843 (March 13, 1997)), to 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will examine, to the extent 

practicable, the reliability and relevance 

of the information used. The 

Department’s regulations state that 

independent sources used to corroborate 

such evidence may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d). 

For the purposes of this investigation, 

to the extent appropriate information 

was available, we reviewed the 

adequacy and accuracy of the 

information in the Petition during our 

pre-initiation analysis and for purposes 

of this preliminary determination. See 

Initiation Checklist. We examined 

evidence supporting the calculations in 

the Petition to determine the probative 

value of the margins alleged in the 

Petition for use as AFA for purposes of 

this preliminary determination. During 

our pre-initiation analysis we examined 

the key elements of the export price and 

normal value calculations used in the 

Petition to derive margins. During our 

pre-initiation analysis we also examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the Petition 

or in supplements to the Petition that 

corroborates key elements of the export 

price and normal value calculations 

used in the Petition to derive estimated 

margins. 

Specifically, the Petitioners calculated 

an export price using U.S. price quotes 

it obtained for light-walled rectangular 

pipe and tube from Korea. These price 

quotes identify the price that the first 

U.S. purchaser unaffiliated with the 

foreign producer, i.e., the international 

trader/importer, offered to its customer. 

The Petitioners also calculated a second 

export price using the average monthly 

Customs Unit Values (AUVs) ((Free 

Alongside Ship) (F.A.S.)) of light-walled 

rectangular pipe and tube from Korea 

for consumption in the United States, 

classified under HTSUS numbers 

7306.60.50.00 and 7306.61.50.00, 

gathered from the Bureau of the Census 

IM145 import statistics. We then 

compared the U.S. price quote to the 

AUVs for this period and confirmed that 

the value of the U.S. price quote was 

consistent with the AUV’s. Further, we 

obtained no other information that 

would make us question the reliability 

of the pricing information provided in 

the Petition. 

The Petitioners adjusted export prices 

for international freight and dealer 

mark-up. The Petitioners used the 

difference between the F.A.S. and C.I.F. 

AUVs for imports from Korea to the 

United States to calculate international 

freight costs. See Petition at page II–10; 

see also July 6, 2007 Supplement to the 

Petition at 6. These data are from the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) and the U.S. Census Bureau, 

which are sources of information that 

we consider reliable. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy 

Degassed Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 

48538, 48540 (August 18, 2005), 

(unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed 

Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 65886 

(November 1, 2005)). Further, we 

obtained no other information that 

would make us question the reliability 

of the adjusted information provided in 

the Petition. The Petitioners estimated 

the distributor mark-up based on 

Searing Industries sales personnel’s 

knowledge of importer’s mark-ups in 

the domestic light-walled rectangular 

tubing industry. The Petitioners 

provided an affidavit from persons 

attesting to the validity of the distributor 

mark-up value the Petitioners used in 

the calculation of net U.S. price. See 

Initiation Checklist at 9. 

Based on our examination of the 

aforementioned information, we 

consider the Petitioners’ calculation of 

net U.S. prices corroborated. 

With respect to normal value, the 

Petitioners derived Korean home market 

prices from a January 2007 edition of 

the Korean Metal Journal, a recognized 

industry journal; no evidence on the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5798 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

record questions the validity of this 

source. Two series of prices were listed: 

a ‘‘consumer’’ price (based on 

destination) and a ‘‘wholesale price.’’ As 

a conservative measure, the lowervalued wholesale price was selected; 

this is more reflective of sales to 

distributors. Prices were quoted in won 

per meter and were converted into U.S. 

dollars using an average dollar weight 

for the proposed POI. The prices were 

also converted from meters to hundredpound-weight (cwt), as cwt is the weight 

by which the subject merchandise is 

typically sold in the United States. 

Petitioners claim the delivery term for 

the wholesale price is ex-factory as 

demonstrated by the single price for all 

regions of the country, whereas 

consumer prices vary by different 

regions of the country suggesting the 

inclusion of freight. Petitioners note the 

products for which they obtained U.S. 

prices fall within the product category 

used for Normal Value (NV) from the 

Korean Metal Journal. See Volume II of 

the Petition at pages 9–10 and Exhibits 

II 21–23 and Volume II of the 

Supplement to the Petition dated July 6, 

2007 at pages 1–2 and Exhibit 1. 

Based on our examination of the 

aforementioned information, we 

consider the Petitioners’ calculation of 

net home market prices corroborated. 

We also examined information 

obtained from interested parties to 

corroborate the home market and U.S. 

prices. Margin percentages calculated 

for Nexteel exceeded those from the 

Petition. 

Therefore, because we confirmed the 

accuracy and validity of the information 

underlying the derivation of margins in 

the Petition by examining source 

documents, publicly available 

information, and primary information 

submitted by respondent Nexteel, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

margins in the Petition are reliable for 

the purposes of this investigation. 

In making a determination as to the 

relevance aspect of corroboration, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal as to whether 

there are circumstances that would 

render a margin not relevant. Where 

circumstances indicate the selected 

margin is not appropriate as adverse 

facts available, the Department will 

disregard the margin and determine an 

appropriate margin. For example, in 

Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin as ‘‘best 

information available’’ (the predecessor 

to ‘‘facts available’’) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense that 

resulted in an unusually high dumping 

margin. 

In American Silicon Technologies v. 

United States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 

1346 (CIT 2003), the court affirmed 

Commerce’s adverse facts-available rate, 

noting that it bore a ‘‘rational 

relationship’’ to the respondent’s 

‘‘commercial practices,’’ and was, 

therefore, relevant. As described above, 

in the pre-initiation stage of this 

investigation, we confirmed the 

calculation of margins in the Petition 

reflects commercial practices of the 

particular industry during the period of 

investigation. Further, no information 

has been presented in the investigation 

that calls into question the relevance of 

this information. As such, we 

preliminarily determine the highest 

margin in the Petition, which we 

determined during our pre-initiation 

analysis was based on adequate and 

accurate information and which we 

have corroborated for purposes of this 

preliminary determination, is relevant 

as the adverse facts-available rate for 

Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., HiSteel Co. 

Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., Joong Won, 

Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., Yujin Steel 

Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & Tube, Han 

Gyu Rae and Kukje in this investigation. 

Similar to our position in 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 53405, 53407 (September 

11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 

(January 17, 2007)), because this is the 

first proceeding involving these 

companies, there are no probative 

alternatives. Accordingly, by using 

information that was corroborated in the 

pre-initiation stage of this investigation 

and preliminarily determined to be 

relevant to Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., 

HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., 

Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., 

Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & 

Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje in this 

investigation, we have corroborated the 

adverse facts-available rate ‘‘to the 

extent practicable.’’ See section 776(c) 

of the Tariff Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and 

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 

2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004) (stating, 

‘‘pursuant to the ‘to the extent 

practicable’ language * * * the 

corroboration requirement itself is not 

mandatory when not feasible’’). 

Therefore, we find that the estimated 

margin of 30.66 percent in the Initiation 

Notice has probative value. 

Consequently, in selecting AFA with 

respect to Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., 

HiSteel Co. Ltd., Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd., 

Joong Won, Miju Steel Mfg. Co. Ltd., 

Yujin Steel Industry Co., Ahshin Pipe & 

Tube, Han Gyu Rae and Kukje, we have 

applied the margin rate of 30.66 percent, 

the highest estimated dumping margin 

set forth in the notice of initiation. See 

Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 40278. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states the Department 

normally will use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the producer’s or exporter’s 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business, as the date of sale. The 

regulations further provide that the 

Department may use a date other than 

the date of the invoice if the Secretary 

is satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the material 

terms of sale are established. See 19 CFR 

351.401(I). The Department has a longstanding practice of finding that, where 

shipment date precedes invoice date, 

shipment date better reflects the date on 

which the material terms of sale are 

established. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 

2004), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel 

Beams from Germany, 67 FR 35497 

(May 20, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2; Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 

From Brazil, 64 FR 38756, 38767 (July 

19, 1999). Nexteel maintains the 

quantity is fixed on the date of shipment 

from its factory but that the price is only 

finalized when Nexteel issues the 

commercial and tax invoices. The 

issuance of commercial and tax invoices 

is frequently after shipment, but was not 

before shipment for any POI sales in 

both the home and U.S. markets. 

Therefore, Nexteel has reported the date 

of shipment from its factory as the date 

of sale under the field SALEDATH. See 

Nexteel’s Section B response dated 

October 29, 2007, at pages B–14 to B–

15. However, since the material terms of 

sale are not finalized until issuance of 

the commercial invoice, we have 

preliminarily determined to use date of 

invoice as the date of sale in both the 

home and U.S. markets. See Nexteel’s 

supplemental Section B response dated 

December 26, 2007, at pages 17 to 18. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5799 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise from Korea were made in 

the United States at less than NV, we 

compared the export price (EP) to the 

NV, as described in the U.S. Price and 

Normal Value sections below. In 

accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of 

the Tariff Act, we calculated the 

weighted-average prices for NV and 

compared these to the weighted-average 

of EP. 

U.S. Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used EP in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Tariff Act. Pursuant to 

section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used 

the EP methodology when the 

merchandise was sold by the producer 

or exporter outside the United States 

directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and when constructed 

export price (CEP) was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts on the 

record. Nexteel has no affiliate in the 

United States and reports all its sales as 

EP sales. See Nexteel’s Section C 

response at page C–9. Nothing on the 

record indicates that Nexteel’s U.S. 

market sales are CEP sales, so we did 

not use the CEP methodology. We based 

EP on the packed prices charged to the 

unaffiliated Korean trading companies 

(as Nexteel knew the merchandise it 

was selling to that trading company was 

destined for the United States). See 

Nexteel’s Section A questionnaire 

response dated October 9, 2007, at page 

A–11; see also Wonderful Chemical 

Industrial, Ltd., et al. v. United States, 

259 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1279 (Ct. Intl. 

Trade 2003). There were no reported 

billing adjustments or duty drawback 

claims. 

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 

of the Tariff Act, we make deductions, 

where appropriate, for movement 

expenses including inland freight and 

brokerage expenses from plant to 

delivery. Due to the nature of Nexteel’s 

U.S. sales (all were made to unaffiliated 

Korean trading companies who took 

possession at the Korean port), however, 

Nexteel had no expenses from plant to 

delivery other than transportation. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and 

Comparison Market Selection 

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 Nexteel’s 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of its 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of 

the Tariff Act, because Nexteel had an 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product that was 

greater than five percent of its aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise, we determined that the 

home market was viable. 

B. Arm’s-Length Test 

Nexteel reported sales of the foreign 

like product to affiliated customers. The 

Department calculates NV based on a 

sale to an affiliated party only if it is 

satisfied that the price to the affiliated 

party is comparable to the price at 

which sales are made to parties not 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

i.e., the sales were at ‘‘arm’s length.’’ See 

19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether 

these sales were made at arm’s length, 

we compared the prices of sales to 

affiliated and unaffiliated customers net 

of all movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, discounts and packing. Id. In 

accordance with the Department’s 

current practice, if the prices charged to 

an affiliated party were, on average, 

between 98 and 102 percent of the 

prices charged to unaffiliated parties for 

merchandise identical or most similar to 

that sold to the affiliated party, we 

considered the sales to be at arm’slength prices and included such sales in 

the calculation of NV. Conversely, 

where sales to the affiliated party did 

not pass the arm’s-length test, all sales 

to that affiliated party would be 

excluded from the NV calculation. See 

19 CFR 351.403(c) see also 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 

2002), and memorandum from Mark 

Flessner, Case Analyst, to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value of LightWalled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

the Republic of Korea,’’ dated January 

23, 2008 (Analysis Memorandum). No 

such sales were excluded for Nexteel. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on our analysis of the 

Petitioners’ allegation, we found that 

there were reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that Nexteel’s sales of 

light-walled rectangular pipe and tube 

in the home market were made at prices 

below their COP. Accordingly, pursuant 

to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we 

initiated a sales-below-cost investigation 

to determine whether Nexteel had sales 

that were made at prices below their 

respective COPs. See Cost Allegation 

Memorandum. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Tariff Act, we calculated 

Nexteel’s COP based on the sum of its 

costs of materials and conversion for the 

foreign like product, plus amounts for 

general and administrative (G&A) 

expenses and interest expenses (see the 

Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 

section below for the treatment of home 

market selling expenses). 

The Department relied upon Nexteel’s 

COP and CV information from the 

company’s submission dated January 

10, 2008. To determine COP, the 

reported cost of manufacturing data 

(TOTCOM) were adjusted by 

incorporating G&A expenses and 

financial expenses based on Nexteel’s 

financial statements, and included in 

Nexteel’s section D response at Exhibits 

D–9 and D–10, respectively. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

prices of the foreign like product, as 

required under section 773(b) of the 

Tariff Act, in order to determine 

whether the sale prices were below the 

COP. The prices were exclusive of any 

applicable movement charges, direct 

and indirect selling expenses, and 

packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Tariff Act, whether, within an extended 

period of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities, and whether such 

sales were made at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. 

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

Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of 

the respondent’s home market sales of a 

given model were at prices below the 

COP, we did not disregard any belowcost sales of that model because we 

determined that the below-cost sales 

were not made within an extended 

period of time in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of the respondent’s home market sales 

of a given model were at prices less than 

COP, we disregarded the below-cost 

sales because: (1) They were made 

within an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Tariff Act, and (2) based on our 

comparison of prices to the weightedaverage COPs for the POR, they were at 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
5800 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 

prices which would not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time, in accordance with 

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

Our cost test indicated that for certain 

Nexteel models, 20 percent or more of 

the home market sales volume (by 

weight) were sold at prices below COP 

within an extended period of time and 

were at prices which would not permit 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time. Thus, in 

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

Tariff Act, we excluded these belowcost sales from our analysis and used 

the remaining above-cost sales in the 

calculation of NV. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We based home market prices on 

packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 

in Korea. We adjusted the starting price 

for inland freight, warehouse expense, 

and warehouse revenue, where 

appropriate, pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act. In 

addition, for comparisons made to EP 

sales, we made adjustments for 

differences in circumstances of sale 

(COS) pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act. We 

made COS adjustments by deducting 

direct selling expenses incurred for 

home market sales (credit expense) and 

adding U.S. direct selling expenses 

(credit and other direct selling 

expenses), where appropriate. See 19 

CFR 351.410(c). 

When comparing U.S. sales with 

comparison market sales of similar, but 

not identical, merchandise, we also 

made adjustments for physical 

differences in the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

We based this adjustment on the 

difference in the variable cost of 

manufacturing for the foreign like 

product and subject merchandise. See 

19 CFR 351.411(b). 

E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export 

Price Offset 

In accordance with section 

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

extent practicable, we determine NV 

based on sales in the comparison market 

at the same level of trade (LOT) as the 

EP or CEP transaction. In identifying 

LOTs for EP and comparison market 

sales (i.e., NV based on home market), 

we consider the starting prices before 

any adjustments. For CEP sales, we 

consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 

F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP or CEP 

transactions, 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 Tariff Act. 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 

Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). 

Nexteel reported sales through one LOT 

corresponding to two channels of 

distribution in the home market. In the 

U.S. market, Nexteel reported one LOT 

corresponding to one channel of 

distribution for the EP sales made 

through unaffiliated Korean trading 

companies (as stated above, there were 

no CEP sales during the POI). In our 

analysis, we determined that there is 

one LOT in the home market and one 

LOT in the U.S. market. Nexteel did not 

claim that there were differing LOTs in 

the home and U.S. markets. Our 

analysis of the various selling functions 

indicates no differing LOTs in the home 

and U.S. markets. See Nexteel’s section 

A questionnaire response dated October 

9, 2007, at Exhibit A–5; Nexteel’s 

Selling Function Chart shows the same 

level of activity in each market for every 

function listed in this exhibit. We have 

therefore preliminarily determined that 

sales to the U.S. and home markets were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

no LOT adjustment was warranted. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Tariff Act based on 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

All-Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act 

states: ‘‘If the estimated weighted 

average dumping margins established 

for all exporters and producers 

individually investigated are zero or de 

minimis margins, or are determined 

entirely under section 776, the 

administering authority may use any 

reasonable method to establish the 

estimated all-others rate for exporters 

and producers not individually 

investigated, including averaging the 

estimated weighted average dumping 

margins determined for the exporters 

and producers individually 

investigated.’’ Nexteel is the only 

respondent in this investigation for 

which the Department has calculated a 

company-specific rate. This rate, 

however, is de minimis. Nine remaining 

companies all received a margin based 

entirely on AFA under section 776 of 

the Tariff Act. One company, SeAH, 

will receive the all-others rate (i.e., its 

rate was not calculated, as stated above). 

Therefore, for purposes of determining 

the all-others rate, because there are no 

other rates than de minimis or those 

based on AFA, we have reasonably 

determined to take a simple average of 

the AFA rate (30.66 percent) and the de 

minimis rate calculated for Nexteel (1.30 

percent); therefore, 15.98 percent is the 

average to be assigned for the all-others 

rate, as referenced in the Suspension of 

Liquidation section, below. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act, we intend to verify 

information upon which we will rely in 

making our final determination. 

Preliminary Determination 

We preliminarily determine the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margins exist for the period April 1, 

2006 through March 31, 2007: 

Producer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percentage) 

Nexteel Co., Ltd. ................... * 1.30 

Dong-A Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. .. 30.66 

HiSteel Co. Ltd. .................... 30.66 

Jinbang Steel Co. Ltd. .......... 30.66 

Joong Won ........................... 30.66 

Miju Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd. ....... 30.66 

Yujin Steel Industry Co. ........ 30.66 

Ahshin Pipe & Tube ............. 30.66 

Han Gyu Rae Steel Co., Ltd. 30.66 

Kukje Steel Co., Ltd. ............ 30.66 

SeAH Steel Corporation, Ltd. 15.98 

All others ............................... 15.98 

* (de minimis). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we are directing U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

LWR pipe and tube from the Republic 

of Korea, with the exception of those 

produced by Nexteel Co., Ltd. and 

exported by Nexteel Co., Ltd. or either 

of the two exporters named in its 

questionnaire responses, that are 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Notices 5801 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margin, as indicated in the 

chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for 

the firms listed above (except for 

Nexteel, see below) will be the rate we 

have determined in this preliminary 

determination; (2) if the exporter is not 

a firm identified in this investigation, 

but the producer is, the rate will be the 

rate established for the producer of the 

subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all 

other producers or exporters will be 

15.98 percent. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(e)(2), because the weightedaverage margin for Nexteel is de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP not to 

suspend liquidation of merchandise 

produced by Nexteel Co., Ltd. and 

exported by Nexteel Co., Ltd. or either 

of the two exporters named in its 

questionnaire responses. 

Commission Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Tariff Act, we have notified the 

Commission of the Department’s 

preliminary affirmative determination. 

If the Department’s final determination 

is affirmative, the Commission will 

determine before the later of 120 days 

after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after our final 

determination whether imports of lightwalled rectangular pipe and tube from 

Korea are materially injuring, or 

threaten material injury to, the U.S. 

industry. Because we have postponed 

the deadline for our final determination 

to 135 days from the date of the 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, the Commission will 

make its final determination within 45 

days of our final determination. 

Disclosure 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), the Department will disclose 

to interested parties the calculations 

performed in this preliminary 

determination within five days of the 

date of the public announcement. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the final verification 

report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to the issues raised in the case briefs, 

must be filed within five days from the 

deadline date for the submission of case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2). 

A list of authorities used, a table of 

contents, and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. Executive 

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. Further, 

we request that parties submitting briefs 

and rebuttal briefs provide the 

Department with a copy of the public 

version of such briefs on diskette. In 

accordance with section 774 of the 

Tariff Act, the Department will hold a 

public hearing, if requested, to afford 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on arguments raised in case or 

rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 

hearing is requested by an interested 

party. If a request for a hearing is made 

in this investigation, the hearing will 

tentatively be held two days after the 

rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

place to be determined. However, 

parties should confirm by telephone, the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

48 hours before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

At the hearing, oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Tariff Act, on January 3, 2008, Nexteel, 

which accounted for a significant 

proportion of exports of light-walled 

rectangular pipe and tube, requested 

that in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, Nexteel requested that 

the Department extend by 60 days the 

application of the provisional measures. 

See Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act 

and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In accordance 

with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act and 

19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our 

preliminary determination is 

affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter 

accounts for a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise, and 

(3) no compelling reasons for denial 

exist, we are granting Nexteel’s request 

and are postponing the final 

determination until no later than 135 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. Suspension of 

liquidation will be extended 

accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. 

Dated: January 23, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 08–415 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–916] 

Laminated Woven Sacks From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of 

Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 31, 2008. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that laminated woven sacks from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

We will make our final determination 

within 135 days after the publication of 

this preliminary determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Bertrand or Javier Barrientos, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–3207 or 202–482–

2243, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation 

On June 28, 2007, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition on imports of laminated woven 

sacks from the PRC from the Laminated 

Woven Sacks Committee and its 

individual members, Bancroft Bags, Inc., 

Coating Excellence International, LLC, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES