[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 82 (Thursday, April 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22552-22553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10024]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of 
Amended Final Results Pursuant to Court Decisions

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In June and November 2009 and January 2010, the United States 
Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained three final remand 
redeterminations made by the Department of Commerce (the Department) in 
the 2003-2004 administrative review of certain steel concrete of 
reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Court No. 05-00613, Slip Op. 
09-55 (June 15, 2009) (Habas I); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 
Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Court No. 05-00613, Slip Op. 09-133 
(Nov. 23, 2009) (Habas II); and Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel 
Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United States and Icdas 
Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S., Court No. 05-00616, Slip 
Op. 10-6 (Jan. 19, 2010) (ICDAS). Because all litigation for this 
administrative review has now concluded, the Department is issuing its 
amended final results in accordance with the CIT's decisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 2, Import Administration - International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-3874.

Background

    In accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on November 8, 2005, the Department 
published its notice of final results in the antidumping duty 
administrative review of rebar from Turkey for the period of review 
(POR) of April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. See Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To 
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 2005) (Final Results).
    In the Final Results the Department followed its normal practice of 
using POR weighted-average costs in its margin calculation for all 
companies, instead of quarterly-average costs as requested by Habas and 
ICDAS. The Department also based the U.S. date of sale for Habas on the 
earlier of shipment date or invoice date and the U.S. date of sale for 
ICDAS on contract date.
    Subsequent to the final results, Habas and ICDAS contested the 
Department's decision to use POR costs, Habas contested the 
Department's decision to use invoice date as its U.S. date of sale, and 
the domestic industry, among other arguments, challenged the 
Department's decision to use invoice date as ICDAS's date of sale.
    On November 18, 2005, the Department requested a voluntary remand 
in order to reconsider the date-of-sale issue for ICDAS. On December 
15, 2005, the CIT granted the Department's request to reconsider 
whether, based upon the record evidence, the Department reasonably 
applied its date-of-sale methodology to the facts at issue. See Nucor 
Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals 
Company v. United States, Court No. 05-00616 (Dec. 15, 2005). On 
January 31, 2006, the Department issued its final results of 
redetermination, in which it found that the invoice date was the 
appropriate date of sale for ICDAS's U.S. sales. See Nucor Corporation, 
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial Metals Company v. United 
States; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Jan. 
31, 2006).
    On November 15, 2007, the CIT remanded for reconsideration Habas' 
date of sale and quarterly cost issues. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar 
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Court No. 05-00613, Slip Op. 
07-167 (Nov. 15, 2007). On March 3, 2008, the Department issued its 
final results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT's November 15, 
2007, remand order, finding that the contract date was the more 
appropriate date of sale and providing additional justification for 
relying on POR costs. See Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 
Endustrisi A.S. v. United States; Final Results of Redetermination 
Pursuant to Court Remand (Mar. 3, 2008).
    On March 24, 2009, the CIT again remanded the ICDAS date of sale 
issue to the Department, requiring that the Department provide a more 
in-depth analysis as to the reason the use of invoice date was 
appropriate. The CIT also remanded two additional issues, at the 
Department's request, related to the calculation of ICDAS's cost of 
production (COP) and the universe of U.S. sales examined in the review. 
See Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial 
Metals Company, v. United States, Court No. 05-00616, Slip Op. 09-20 
(March 24, 2009).
    On June 15, 2009, the CIT affirmed the Department's determination 
to use contract date as the date of sale for Habas' U.S. sales. See 
Habas I. However, the CIT also determined that the Department's 
analysis of Habas' COP (i.e., quarterly costs vs. annual weighted-
average costs) in the Final Results was not supported by substantial 
evidence on the record, and the court remanded this issue to the 
Department once again for additional reconsideration. Id.
    On September 8, 2009, and November 6, 2009, respectively, the 
Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to the 
CIT's June 15, 2009, and March 24, 2009, rulings. See Habas Sinai Tibbi 
Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, Final Results of 
Redetermination

[[Page 22553]]

Pursuant to Court Remand (Sept. 8, 2009) and Nucor Corporation, Gerdau 
Ameristeel Corporation, and Commercial metals Company v. United Sates, 
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Nov. 6, 
2009). In both remand redeterminations, the Department reconsidered the 
appropriateness of using POR cost data, and consistent with the court's 
orders, recalculated the margin for both companies using quarterly 
costs. In addition, in its November 6, 2009, redetermination, the 
Department provided additional justification for its date of sale 
methodology for ICDAS, as well as for its methodology of defining the 
universe of reviewed transactions.
    On November 23, 2009, and January 19, 2010, respectively, the CIT 
found that the Department complied with its remand orders and sustained 
the Department's remand redeterminations in all respects. See Habas II 
and ICDAS.
    On December 4, 2009, and February 12, 2010, respectively, 
consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal District in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the CIT's decisions 
were ``not in harmony'' with the Department's Final Results. See 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Notice of Court 
Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review, 74 
FR 65515 (Dec. 10, 2009) and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
from Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results 
of Administrative Review, 75 FR 7562 (Feb. 22, 2010) (Collectively, 
Rebar Timken Notices). No party appealed either of the CIT's judgments. 
Because there are now final and conclusive decisions in the Court 
proceedings as explained in the Rebar Timken Notices, we are issuing 
amended final results to reflect the results of the remand 
determinations.

Amended Final Results of Review

    We are amending the final results of the 2003-2004 administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey to revise the 
weighted-average margin for Habas from 26.07 percent to 5.58 percent, 
and to revise the weighted-average margin for ICDAS from 0.16 percent 
to 0.70 percent.

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 23, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-10024 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S