Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45393 

1The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum 

Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, United Auto 

Workers Local 3303, United Steelworkers of 

America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco 

Independent Organization. 

mountain biking, canoeing, and rafting; 

and 

e. Hunting and fishing; 

(2) Three persons who represent 

interest groups that include, as 

appropriate, the following: 

a. Non-motorized outfitters and 

guides-position one; 

b. Non-motorized outfitters and 

guides-position two; and 

c. Local environmental groups. 

(3) Three persons, as follows: 

a. State tourism official to represent 

the state; 

b. A person who represents affected 

Indian tribes; and 

c. A person who represents affected 

local government interests. 

Nomination Information 

Any individual or organization may 

nominate one or more qualified persons 

to represent the interests listed above to 

serve on the Recreation RAC. To be 

considered for membership, nominees 

must: 

• Identify what interest group they 

would represent and how they are 

qualified to represent that group; 

• State why they want to serve on the 

committee and what they can 

contribute; 

• Show their past experience in 

working successfully as part of a 

collaborative group; and 

• Complete Form AD–755, Advisory 

Committee or Research and Promotion 

Background Information. 

Letters of recommendation are 

welcome, but not required. Individuals 

may also nominate themselves. 

Nominees do not need to live in a state 

within a particular Recreation RAC’s 

area of jurisdiction nor live in a state in 

which Forest Service-managed lands are 

located. 

Application packets, including 

evaluation criteria and the AD–755 

form, are available at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/rracapplication.shtml or by contacting the 

Southern Region as identified in this 

notice. Nominees must submit all 

documents to the appropriate regional 

contact. Additional information about 

recreation fees and REA is available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/ 

about-rec-fees.shtml. 

The Forest Service will also work 

with Governors and county officials to 

identify potential nominees. 

The Forest Service will review the 

applications and prepare a list of 

qualified applicants from which the 

Secretary shall appoint both members 

and alternates. An alternate will become 

a participating member of the 

Recreation RACs only if the member for 

whom the alternate is appointed to 

replace leaves the committee 

permanently. 

Recreation RAC members serve 

without pay but are reimbursed for 

travel and per diem expenses for 

regularly scheduled committee 

meetings. All Recreation RAC meetings 

are open to the public and an open 

public forum is part of each meeting. 

Meeting dates and times will be 

determined by agency officials in 

consultation with the Recreation RAC 

members. 

Dated: July 29, 2008. 

Cheryl Chatham, 

Designated Federal Official. 

[FR Doc. E8–17783 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–831] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and 

Preliminary Rescission in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) 

from Taiwan with respect to three 

companies. Only one respondent, Chia 

Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia 

Far), is participating in this review. The 

period of review (POR) is July 1, 2006, 

through June 30, 2007. 

We preliminarily determine that Chia 

Far made sales below normal value 

(NV). 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of this administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henry Almond, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 2, Import Administration–Room 

1870, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone:(202) 482–0049. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 27, 1999, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SSSSC from 

Taiwan. See Notice of Antidumping 

Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, 

Taiwan, and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 

(July 27, 1999) (SSSSC Order). On July 

3, 2007, the Department published in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

opportunity to request administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on SSSSC from Taiwan. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 36420 

(July 3, 2007). On July 31, 2007, the 

petitioners1 submitted a timely request 

for the Department to conduct an 

administrative review of the sales of 

SSSSC made during the POR by Chain 

Chon Industrial Co., Ltd.; Chia Far; 

Chien Shing Stainless Co.; China Steel 

Corporation; Emerdex Stainless Flat–

Rolled Products, Inc.; Emerdex Stainless 

Steel, Inc.; Emerdex Group; Goang Jau 

Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.; PFP Taiwan 

Co. Ltd.; Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., 

Ltd. (Ta Chen); Tang Eng Iron Works; 

Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd. (also 

known as Chung Hung Steel Co., Ltd.); 

Yieh Trading Corp. (also known as Yieh 

Corp.); Yieh Mau Corp.; and Yieh 

United Steel Corporation (YUSCO), 

pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 

in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1). On August 24, 2007, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of administrative review 

covering each of these 15 companies. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 72 FR 48613, 48614 (Aug. 24, 

2007). 

In October 2007, the petitioners 

withdrew their request for 

administrative review with respect to 

the following 12 companies: China Steel 

Corporation; Emerdex Stainless Flat 

Rolled Products, Inc.; Emerdex Stainless 

Steel, Inc.; Emerdex Group; Tang Eng 

Iron Works; PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.; Yieh 

Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd. (aka Chung 

Hung Steel Co., Ltd.); Yieh Trading 

Corp.; Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., 

Ltd.; Yieh Mau Corp.; Chien Shing 

Stainless Co.; and Chain Chon Industrial 

Co., Ltd. Subsequently, also in October 

2007, the Department issued its quantity 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45394 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

and value (Q&V) questionnaire to Chia 

Far, Ta Chen, and YUSCO, the 

remaining three companies for which a 

review was requested. We received Chia 

Far’s response to the Q&V 

questionnaire, as well as certification of 

no shipments from YUSCO and Ta 

Chen, on October 26, 2007, and October 

29, 2007, respectively. 

In November 2007, the Department 

issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Chia Far. In December 

2007, we received Chia Far’s response to 

section A of the questionnaire (i.e., the 

section regarding general information), 

as well as its response to sections B 

through D of the questionnaire (i.e., the 

sections regarding sales and cost data). 

Also in December 2007, we issued a 

letter to Ta Chen requesting that it 

reconcile its claim that it did not ship 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR with information 

the Department obtained from CBP. Ta 

Chen responded to our request for 

information regarding its POR 

shipments in January 2008. 

In March 2008, we published a notice 

rescinding the administrative review 

with respect to the 12 companies named 

above based on the petitioners’ timely 

withdrawal of the review requests. See 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Taiwan; Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Extension of Time 

Limits for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 16264 (Mar. 27, 2008). 

In April and May 2008, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires covering 

sections A through D to Chia Far. We 

received Chia Far’s responses to the 

supplemental questionnaires in May 

and June 2008. 

Period of Review 

The POR is July 1, 2006, through June 

30, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

certain stainless steel sheet and strip in 

coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject sheet and strip is 

a flat–rolled product in coils that is 

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less 

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is 

annealed or otherwise heat treated and 

pickled or otherwise descaled. The 

subject sheet and strip may also be 

further processed (e.g., cold–rolled, 

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) 

provided that it maintains the specific 

dimensions of sheet and strip following 

such processing. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 

7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 

7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 

7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 

7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 

7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 

7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 

7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 

7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 

7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 

7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 

7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 

7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 

7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 

7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 

7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 

7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 

7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 

7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 

7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 

7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 

7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 

7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 

7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 

7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 

7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 

7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 

7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under the order is 

dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are the following: 1) sheet and strip that 

is not annealed or otherwise heat treated 

and pickled or otherwise descaled, 2) 

sheet and strip that is cut to length, 3) 

plate (i.e., flat–rolled stainless steel 

products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or 

more), 4) flat wire (i.e., cold–rolled 

sections, with a prepared edge, 

rectangular in shape, of a width of not 

more than 9.5 mm), and 5) razor blade 

steel. Razor blade steel is a flat–rolled 

product of stainless steel, not further 

worked than cold–rolled (cold–

reduced), in coils, of a width of not 

more than 23 mm and a thickness of 

0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 

12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and 

certified at the time of entry to be used 

in the manufacture of razor blades. See 

Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ‘‘Additional 

U.S. Note’’ 1(d). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

order are certain specialty stainless steel 

products described below. Flapper valve 

steel is defined as stainless steel strip in 

coils containing, by weight, between 

0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 

1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and 

between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 

manganese. This steel also contains, by 

weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or 

less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 

percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less. The product is manufactured by 

means of vacuum arc remelting, with 

inclusion controls for sulphide of no 

more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of 

no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 

valve steel has a tensile strength of 

between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength 

of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or 

minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of 

between 460 and 590. Flapper valve 

steel is most commonly used to produce 

specialty flapper valves in compressors. 

Also excluded is a product referred to 

as suspension foil, a specialty steel 

product used in the manufacture of 

suspension assemblies for computer 

disk drives. Suspension foil is described 

as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless 

steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 

microns, with a thickness tolerance of 

plus–or-minus 2.01 microns, and 

surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent 

Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in 

coil widths of not more than 407 mm, 

and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll 

marks may only be visible on one side, 

with no scratches of measurable depth. 

The material must exhibit residual 

stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, 

and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm 

length. 

Certain stainless steel foil for 

automotive catalytic converters is also 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

This stainless steel strip in coils is a 

specialty foil with a thickness of 

between 20 and 110 microns used to 

produce a metallic substrate with a 

honeycomb structure for use in 

automotive catalytic converters. The 

steel contains, by weight, carbon of no 

more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no 

more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no 

more than 1.0 percent, chromium of 

between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum 

of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus 

of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of 

no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum 

of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 

percent, and total rare earth elements of 

more than 0.06 percent, with the 

balance iron. 

Permanent magnet iron–chromiumcobalt alloy stainless strip is also 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

This ductile stainless steel strip 

contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent 

chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, 

with the remainder of iron, in widths 

228.6 mm or less, and a thickness 

between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits 

magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 

12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of 

between 50 and 300 oersteds. This 

product is most commonly used in 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45395 

2Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold 

Engineering Company. 

3 Gilphy 36 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. 

4 Durphynox 17 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. 

5This list of uses is illustrated and provided for 

descriptive purposes only. 

6 GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary 

grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 

electronic sensors and is currently 

available under proprietary trade names 

such as Arnokrome III.2

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel 

is also excluded from the scope of the 

order. This product is defined as a non–

magnetic stainless steel manufactured to 

American Society of Testing and 

Materials specification B344 and 

containing, by weight, 36 percent 

nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 

percent iron, and is most notable for its 

resistance to high temperature 

corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 

degrees Celsius and displays a creep 

rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square 

millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This 

steel is most commonly used in the 

production of heating ribbons for circuit 

breakers and industrial furnaces, and in 

rheostats for railway locomotives. The 

product is currently available under 

proprietary trade names such as Gilphy 

36.3

Certain martensitic precipitation–

hardenable stainless steel is also 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

This high–strength, ductile stainless 

steel product is designated under the 

Unified Numbering System as S45500–

grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 

to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 

percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 

silicon and molybdenum each comprise, 

by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with 

phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, 

by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This 

steel has copper, niobium, and titanium 

added to achieve aging, and will exhibit 

yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 

ultimate tensile strengths as high as 

1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation 

percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 

mm. It is generally provided in 

thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 

mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This 

product is most commonly used in the 

manufacture of television tubes and is 

currently available under proprietary 

trade names such as Durphynox 17.4

Finally, three specialty stainless steels 

typically used in certain industrial 

blades and surgical and medical 

instruments are also excluded from the 

scope of the order. These include 

stainless steel strip in coils used in the 

production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 

carpet knives).5 This steel is similar to 

AISI grade 420 but containing, by 

weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of 

molybdenum. The steel also contains, 

by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 

1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less, and includes between 0.20 and 

0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 

and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 

sold under proprietary names such as 

GIN4 Mo. The second excluded 

stainless steel strip in coils is similar to 

AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight, 

carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 

percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 

0.50 percent, manganese of between 

0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no 

more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of 

no more than 0.020 percent. This steel 

has a carbide density on average of 100 

carbide particles per 100 square 

microns. An example of this product is 

GIN5 steel. The third specialty steel has 

a chemical composition similar to AISI 

420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 

0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 

1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower 

manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 

percent, phosphorus of no more than 

0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 

and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more 

than 0.020 percent. This product is 

supplied with a hardness of more than 

Hv 500 guaranteed after customer 

processing, and is supplied as, for 

example, GIN6.6

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Review 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, two respondents, Ta Chen and 

YUSCO, certified to the Department that 

they had no shipments/entries of subject 

merchandise into the United States 

during the POR. The Department 

subsequently confirmed with CBP the 

no–shipment claim made by YUSCO. 

See the August 31, 2007, Memorandum 

to The File from Nichole Zink, Analyst, 

entitled, ‘‘2006–2007 Administrative 

Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strips in Coils from Taiwan: Entry 

Information from U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP)’’ (CBP Memo). 

Because the evidence on the record 

indicates that YUSCO did not export 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR, we preliminarily 

determine it is appropriate to rescind 

the review for YUSCO, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and 

consistent with the Department’s 

practice. See, e.g., Chia Far Indus. 

Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. 

Supp 2d 1344, 1374 (2004); 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, 67666 

(Nov. 8, 2005) (Rebar from Turkey); and 

Notice of Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Welded 

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from 

Turkey, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 

1998) (Pipe and Tube from Turkey). 

Regarding Ta Chen, CBP information 

indicated that this company may have 

had shipments or entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See the 

CBP Memo. Based on the CBP 

information, on December 14, 2007, we 

requested that Ta Chen reconcile its no–

shipment claim with information 

contained in the CBP memo. On January 

7, 2008, Ta Chen responded to our 

request for information explaining that 

the entries at issue are not subject 

merchandise because they are not of 

coiled product. After reviewing the CBP 

data, and the documents provided by Ta 

Chen in its January 7 submission, 

including invoices, mill test reports, and 

shipping documents, we preliminarily 

determine that Ta Chen’s POR entries 

were not subject merchandise as defined 

by the scope of the order. Specifically, 

the order only covers products in coils, 

and the evidence submitted by Ta Chen 

shows that the entries in question were 

of stainless steel strip that was cut–tolength, and not in coils. Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) 

and consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we are also preliminarily 

rescinding our review with respect to Ta 

Chen. See, e.g., Rebar From Turkey, 70 

FR at 67666; Pipe and Tube from 

Turkey, 63 FR at 3519. 

Affiliation 

In the 2005–2006 administrative 

review, the most recently completed 

segment of this proceeding, we found 

Chia Far and Lucky Medsup Inc. (Lucky 

Medsup), one of Chia Far’s U.S. reseller 

customers, to be affiliated under section 

771(33) of the Act based upon: 1) a 

document demonstrating the existence 

of a principal–agent relationship; 2) 

Chia Far’s degree of involvement in 

sales between Lucky Medsup and its 

customers, showing that for some sales 

Chia Far knew the identity of the end–

customer before it set its price to Lucky 

Medsup; 3) the fact that Lucky Medsup 

only sold subject merchandise produced 

by Chia Far; and 4) the fact that Lucky 

Medsup did not maintain inventory of, 

or further manufacture, SSSSC. See 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Taiwan: Final Results and 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 6932 

(Feb. 6, 2008), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

3 (2005–2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Final 

Results). This affiliation determination 

was consistent with the Department’s 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45396 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

findings in prior administrative reviews 

of the antidumping duty order on 

SSSSC from Taiwan. See, e.g., Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 

Taiwan; Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 75504 

(Dec. 15, 2006); Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip From Taiwan; Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682 

(Feb. 13, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 23 (upheld by the Court of 

International Trade (CIT) in Chia Far 

Industrial Factory Co. Ltd. v. United 

States, et al., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1356 

(CIT 2004)). See also the July 25, 2008, 

memorandum from Henry Almond, 

Analyst, to the file entitled, ‘‘Placing 

Information Regarding the Principal–

Agent Relationship between Lucky 

Medsup Inc. and Chia Far Industrial 

Factory Co., Ltd. on the Record of the 

2006–2007 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Taiwan.’’

In the instant administrative review, 

Chia Far has continued to argue that it 

is not affiliated with Lucky Medsup. 

Chia Far concedes that the relationship 

between the two companies has not 

changed from the prior reviews, except 

that the two have recently exchanged 

correspondence stating that the sole 

distribution relationship entered into in 

1994 was terminated in 1995, and that 

Lucky Medsup has recently begun 

selling merchandise produced by other 

manufacturers. Notwithstanding the 

additional information provided by Chia 

Far, we preliminarily find that the 

manner in which Chia Far and Lucky 

Medsup conduct business between them 

has not materially changed from the 

previous review and we continue to find 

that Chia Far and Lucky Medsup are 

affiliated, in accordance with section 

771(33) of the Act. 

Chia Far acknowledges that, with the 

exception of the exchange of 

correspondence stating that the 1994 

sole distributorship arrangement had 

been terminated in 1995, ‘‘the pertinent 

facts with respect to that relationship 

have not changed between the two 

review periods.’’ See Chia Far’s 

December 3, 2007, submission at page 7. 

While Chia Far and Lucky Medsup may 

have exchanged a letter stating that the 

sole distributor relationship was 

terminated in 1995, this declaration has 

not changed the fact that these 

companies continue to operate in a 

principal–agent relationship. In Notice 

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Furfuryl Alcohol 

From the Republic of South Africa, 62 

FR 61084, 61089 (Nov. 14, 1997), the 

Department stated that even in the 

absence of an explicit agreement, where 

there exists a principal who has the 

potential to control pricing and/or the 

terms of sale through the end–customer, 

the Department will find agency and 

thus affiliation. The letter purporting to 

establish the date that the sole 

distributorship relationship was 

terminated was submitted for the 

purposes of this proceeding and was not 

a document generated in the ordinary 

course of business from the applicable 

time period. Given that this letter was 

not produced in the ordinary course of 

business, and in light of other evidence 

on the record, specifically the fact that 

the functional relationship between the 

two companies has not changed, we 

have preliminarily determined not to 

place great weight on the letter. 

Additionally, there is no other evidence 

on the record of this administrative 

review that indicates the principal–

agent relationship found in prior 

reviews does not continue to exist in 

this review. Those conditions 

established: 1) Chia Far’s degree of 

involvement in sales between Lucky 

Medsup and its customers; 2) that Chia 

Far knew the identity of Lucky 

Medsup’s customers, and the customers 

were aware Chia Far was the supplier; 

3) that Lucky Medsup operated as a 

‘‘go–through’’ that did not maintain any 

inventory or further manufacture 

products; and 4) that, with the 

exception of one transaction involving 

non–subject merchandise, all of the 

products sold by Lucky Medsup during 

the POR were subject merchandise 

produced or exported by Chia Far. 

Section 771(33) of the Act states that 

for purposes of affiliation, ‘‘a person 

shall be considered to control another 

person if the person is legally or 

operationally in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over that person.’’

The Department’s regulations further 

provide that ‘‘{t}he Secretary will not 

find that control exists on the basis of 

these factors unless the relationship has 

the potential to impact decisions 

concerning the production, pricing, or 

cost of the subject merchandise or 

foreign like product.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.102(b). Because the relationship 

between the companies has not 

changed, as conceded by Chia Far, 

including the fact that Chia Far supplied 

all of the subject merchandise sold by 

Lucky Medsup during the POR, we 

continue to find for purposes of these 

preliminary results that Chia Far is 

affiliated with Lucky Medsup because 

Chia Far is in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over Lucky 

Medsup. 

Identifying Home Market Sales 

Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act defines 

NV as the price at which the foreign like 

product is first sold (or, in the absence 

of a sale, offered for sale) for 

consumption in the exporting country 

(home market), in the usual commercial 

quantities and in the ordinary course of 

trade and, to the extent practicable, at 

the same level of trade (LOT) as the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP). In implementing this 

provision, the CIT has found that sales 

should be reported as home market sales 

if the producer ‘‘knew or should have 

known that the merchandise {it sold} 

was for home consumption based upon 

the particular facts and circumstances 

surrounding the sales.’’ See Tung Mung 

Dev. Co v. United States, 25 CIT 752, 

783 (2001) (quoting INA Walzlager 

Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. 

Supp. 251 (1997)). Where a respondent 

has no knowledge as to the destination 

of subject merchandise, except that it is 

for export, the Department will classify 

such sales as export sales and exclude 

them from the home market sales 

database. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 

Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products, Certain Corrosion–Resistant 

Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain 

Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 

Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37182–37183 (July 

9, 1993). 

In its December 21, 2007, 

questionnaire response, Chia Far stated 

that it shipped some of the SSSSC it 

sold to home market customers during 

the POR to a container yard or it placed 

the SSSSC in an ocean shipping 

container at the home market customer’s 

request. The Department has 

preliminarily determined that, based on 

the fact that these sales were sent to a 

container yard or placed in a container 

by Chia Far at the request of the home 

market customer, Chia Far should have 

known that the SSSSC in question was 

not for consumption in the home 

market. Therefore, consistent with this 

determination, the Department has 

preliminarily excluded these sales from 

Chia Far’s home market sales database. 

This treatment is consistent with our 

practice in prior administrative reviews 

of this order. See, e.g., Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results and Rescission in 

Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 43236, 

43241 (Aug. 3, 2007) (2005–2006 SSSSC 

from Taiwan Preliminary Results), 

unchanged in 2005–2006 SSSSC from 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45397 

Taiwan Final Results, 73 FR 6932 (Feb. 

6, 2008). 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

In order to determine whether Chia 

Far sold SSSSC to the United States at 

prices less than NV, the Department 

compared the EP and CEP of individual 

U.S. sales to the monthly weighted–

average NV of sales of the foreign like 

product made in the ordinary course of 

trade. See section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; 

see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 

Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines 

foreign like product as merchandise that 

is identical or similar to subject 

merchandise and produced by the same 

person and in the same country as the 

subject merchandise. Thus, we 

considered all products covered by the 

scope of the order that were produced 

by the same person and in the same 

country as the subject merchandise, and 

sold by Chia Far in the comparison 

market during the POR, to be foreign 

like products for the purpose of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to SSSSC sold in the 

United States. 

During the POR, Chia Far sold subject 

merchandise and foreign like product 

that it made from hot- and cold–rolled 

stainless steel coils (products covered 

by the scope of the order) purchased 

from unaffiliated parties. Chia Far 

further processed the hot- and cold–

rolled stainless steel coils by performing 

one or more of the following 

procedures: cold–rolling, bright 

annealing, surface finishing/shaping, 

and slitting. We did not consider Chia 

Far to be the producer of the 

merchandise under review if it 

performed only insignificant processing 

on the coils (e.g., annealing, slitting, 

surface finishing). See Stainless Steel 

Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 74495 

(Dec. 14, 2004), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4 (listing painting, slitting, 

finishing, pickling, oiling, and 

annealing as minor processing for flat–

rolled products). Furthermore, we did 

not consider Chia Far to be the producer 

of the cold–rolled products that it sold 

if it was not the first party to cold–roll 

the coils. The cold–rolling process 

changes the surface quality and 

mechanical properties of the product 

and produces useful combinations of 

hardness, strength, stiffness, and 

ductility. Stainless steel cold–rolled 

coils are distinguished from hot–rolled 

coils by their reduced thickness, tighter 

tolerances, better surface quality, and 

increased hardness which are achieved 

through cold–rolling. Chia Far’s 

subsequent cold–rolling of the cold–

rolled coils that it purchased may have 

modified these characteristics to suit the 

needs of particular customers; however, 

it did not impart these defining 

characteristics to the finished coils. 

Thus, we considered the original party 

that cold–rolled the product to be its 

producer. 

Product Comparisons 

The Department compared U.S. sales 

to sales made in the comparison market 

within the contemporaneous window 

period, which extends from three 

months prior to the month in which the 

first U.S. sale was made until two 

months after the month in which the 

last U.S. sale was made. See 19 CFR 

351.414(e)(2). Where there were no sales 

of identical merchandise made in the 

comparison market in the ordinary 

course of trade, the Department 

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making 

product comparisons, the Department 

selected identical and most similar 

foreign like products based on the 

physical characteristics reported by 

Chia Far in the following order of 

importance: grade, hot- or cold–rolled, 

gauge, surface finish, metallic coating, 

non–metallic coating, width, temper, 

and edge. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

The Department based the price of 

Chia Far’s U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise on EP or CEP, as 

appropriate. Specifically, when Chia Far 

sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States prior to 

importation and CEP was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts of the 

record, we based the price of the sale on 

EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act. When Chia Far sold subject 

merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States through its U.S. 

affiliate, Lucky Medsup, we based the 

price of the sale on CEP, in accordance 

with section 772(b) of the Act. 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight 

expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, international freight 

expenses, marine insurance expenses, 

container handling charges, harbor 

maintenance fees, and certificate–oforigin fees in, accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

We based CEP on packed prices sold 

to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States. We made deductions for 

foreign inland freight expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, 

container handling expenses, foreign 

harbor construction expenses, 

international freight expenses, marine 

insurance expenses, U.S. duty expenses, 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 

other U.S. transportation expenses, and 

harbor maintenance fees, in accordance 

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted from CEP those selling 

expenses associated with economic 

activities occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

imputed credit expenses, bank fees, and 

warranties) and indirect selling 

expenses. 

In addition, we deducted from the 

CEP starting price an amount for CEP 

profit (profit allocated to expenses 

deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 

(d)(2) of the Act), in accordance with 

sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. 

We computed profit by deducting from 

the total revenue realized on sales in 

both the U.S. and home markets all 

expenses associated with those sales. 

We then allocated profit to the expenses 

incurred with respect to U.S. economic 

activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. 

expenses to total expenses for both the 

U.S. and home markets. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act. Because the aggregate volume 

of Chia Far’s home market sales of the 

foreign like product is more than five 

percent of the aggregate volume of its 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we 

based NV on sales of the foreign like 

product in the respondent’s home 

market. 

B. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP. 

Sales are made at different LOTs if they 

are made at different marketing stages 

(or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 

selling activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id. See also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45398 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

7Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), 

we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling expenses, 

general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and 

profit for CV, where possible. 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) 

(Plate from South Africa). In order to 

determine whether the comparison 

market sales were at different stages in 

the marketing process than the U.S. 

sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),7 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 Act. See Micron Tech., Inc. 

v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1313–

14 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

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

sales only, if the NV LOT is more 

remote from the factory than the CEP 

LOT and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from Chia Far 

regarding the marketing stages involved 

in making the reported home market 

and U.S. sales, including a description 

of the selling activities performed by 

Chia Far for each channel of 

distribution. Chia Far reported that it 

made EP sales in the U.S. market to 

distributors, as well as CEP sales to 

Lucky Medsup. Chia Far reported 

identical selling activities in selling to 

its unaffiliated U.S. customers as it did 

in selling to its affiliate, Lucky Medsup. 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for both channels and found 

that Chia Far performed the following 

types of selling activities equally in 

selling to its unaffiliated U.S. customers 

and to Lucky Medsup: 1) price 

negotiation and communication with 

the customer; 2) arranging for freight 

and the provision of customs clearance/ 

brokerage services (where necessary); 

and 3) provision of general technical 

advice (where necessary) and quality 

assurance–related activities, including 

warranty services. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) 

freight and delivery; and 3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and, 4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, we find that Chia Far 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and warranty and 

technical support services for U.S. sales. 

Because the level of Chia Far’s selling 

activities did not vary by distribution 

channel, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, Chia 

Far reported that it made sales to 

distributors and end users. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for home market sales and 

found that Chia Far performed the 

following types of selling activities 

equally for sales to distributors and end 

users: 1) price negotiation and 

communication with the customer; 2) 

arranging for freight (where necessary); 

3) provision of general technical advice 

(where necessary) and quality 

assurance–related activities, including 

providing warranty services and rebates; 

and 4) post–sale warehousing/ 

processing on request. Accordingly, 

based on the selling functions analysis 

described above, we find that Chia Far 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, warranty and 

technical support services, and 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing for home market sales. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market for Chia Far. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers do not 

differ significantly. Specifically, 

although Chia Far performed occasional 

warehousing and post–sale processing 

functions in the home market that it did 

not perform on sales to the United 

States, we do not find these differences 

to be material selling function 

distinctions significant to warrant a 

separate LOT for purposes of these 

preliminary results. Thus, we determine 

that the NV LOT for Chia Far is the 

same as the U.S. LOT for Chia Far. 

Regarding the CEP–offset provision, 

as described above, it is appropriate 

only if the NV LOT is more remote from 

the factory than the CEP LOT and there 

is no basis for determining whether the 

difference in LOTs between NV and CEP 

affects price comparability. Because we 

find that no difference in LOTs exists, 

we do not find that a CEP offset is 

warranted for Chia Far. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

In the 2005–2006 administrative 

review, the most recently completed 

segment of this proceeding as of the date 

of initiation of this review, the 

Department determined that Chia Far 

sold the foreign like product at prices 

below the cost of producing the product 

and excluded such sales from the 

calculation of NV. See 2005–2006 

SSSSC from Taiwan Final Results, 73 

FR at 6935. As a result, the Department 

initiated an investigation to determine 

whether Chia Far made home market 

sales during the POR at prices below 

their COPs. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 

of the Act. 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, for each foreign like product 

sold by Chia Far during the POR, we 

calculated a weighted–average COP 

based on the sum of the respondent’s 

materials and fabrication costs, G&A 

expenses, and financial expenses. 

For the cost of SSSSC not produced 

by Chia Far, as in prior segments of this 

proceeding, we used, as facts available, 

Chia Far’s costs to produce merchandise 

with characteristics identical or similar 

to the characteristics of the merchandise 

not produced by Chia Far. See 2005–

2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Preliminary 

Results, 72 FR at 43224, unchanged in 

2005–2006 SSSSC from Taiwan Final 

Results, 73 FR 6932. We find that the 

percentage of Chia Far’s U.S. sales 

accounted for by this merchandise is not 

significant. However, in future segments 

of this proceeding, if the proportion of 

merchandise produced by other 

manufacturers becomes significant, we 

may request that Chia Far provide cost 

data from its unaffiliated supplier. 

For further information, see the July 

30, 2008, Memorandum to the File from 

Henry Almond entitled, ‘‘Sales 

Calculation Adjustments for Chia Far 

Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far) 

for the Preliminary Results.’’

2. Test of Comparison–Market Sales 

Prices 

In order to determine whether sales 

were made at prices below the COP on 

a product–specific basis, we compared 

the Chia Far’s weighted–average COP to 

the prices of its home market sales of 

foreign like product, as required under 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 45399 

section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance 

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

Act, in determining whether to 

disregard home market sales made at 

prices less than the COP, we examined 

whether such sales were made: 1) in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time; and 2) at prices 

which permitted the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

We compared the COP to home market 

sales prices, less any applicable 

movement charges and direct and 

indirect selling expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of Chia 

Far’s sales of a given product were made 

at prices less than the COP, we did not 

disregard any below–cost sales of that 

product because the below–cost sales 

were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of Chia Far’s sales of a given product 

were made at prices less than the COP 

during the POR, we determined such 

sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ within an extended period 

of time (i.e., one year) pursuant to 

sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. 

Based on our comparison of POR 

average costs to reported prices, we also 

determined, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that these sales 

were not made at prices which would 

permit recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time. As a result, 

we disregarded the below–cost sales of 

that product. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We based NV for Chia Far on prices 

to unaffiliated customers in the home 

market. We made deductions from the 

starting price, where appropriate, for 

billing adjustments and rebates. We also 

made deductions from the starting price 

for foreign inland freight expenses 

under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

In addition, we made adjustments under 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.410(c) for differences in 

credit expenses, bank fees, and 

warranties. 

We also deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. Finally, 

we made adjustments for differences in 

costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise in accordance with section 

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

351.411. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margin exists for the respondent for the 

period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 

2007: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent 

Margin 

Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 2.71 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be filed 

not later than 35 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: 1) a statement of the 

issue; 2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and 3) a table of authorities. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of the date of 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 issues to be 

discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

For Chia Far, we will calculate 

importer–specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those sales. 

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., less 

than 0.50 percent). 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. 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. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all 

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

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)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the 

cash deposit rate for Chia Far 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 no cash 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45400 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

1The Department verified these adjustments 

during its verification of Maquilacero’s comparison 

and U.S. market sales. See Verification of the Sales 

Responses of Maquilacero S.A. de C.V in the 

Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled 

deposit will be required; 2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, 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, or the initial 

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 12.61 

percent, the all others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

SSSSC Order, 64 FR at 40557. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

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. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17935 Filed 8–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

The Ohio State University, et al.; Notice 

of Consolidated Decision on 

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of 

Electron Microscopes 

This is a decision consolidated 

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 

Related records can be viewed between 

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. 

Docket Number: 08–027. Applicant: 

The Ohio State University, Columbus, 

OH 43210. Instrument: Electron 

Microscope, Model Helios 600. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company/Phillips 

Electron Optics, The Netherlands. 

Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 

37408, July 1, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–029. Applicant: 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 

37232–8725. Instrument: Electron 

Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 F20 

TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The 

Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 

72 FR 37408, July 1, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–030. Applicant: 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA 

98195. Instrument: Electron Microscope, 

Model Tecnai G2 F20 S–TWIN. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company, The 

Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 

72 FR 34708, July 1, 2008. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. No instrument of equivalent 

scientific value to the foreign 

instrument, for such purposes as these 

instruments are intended to be used, 

was being manufactured in the United 

States at the time the instruments were 

ordered. Reasons: Each foreign 

instrument is an electron microscope 

and is intended for research or scientific 

educational uses requiring an electron 

microscope. We know of no electron 

microscope, or any other instrument 

suited to these purposes, which was 

being manufactured in the United States 

at the time of order of each instrument. 

Dated: July 25, 2008. 

Faye Robinson, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, 

Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–17723 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–836] 

Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube From Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Judy Lao, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce (the Department), 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–8029 or (202) 482–7924, 

respectively. 

Amendment to Final Determination 

In accordance with sections 735(a) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, (the Act), on June 13, 2008, 

the Department made a final 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (LTFV) in the investigation of 

light-walled rectangular pipe and tube 

from Mexico. The final determination 

was subsequently released to all parties 

in the proceeding, and published in the 

Federal Register on June 24, 2008. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, 73 FR 35649 (June 24, 2008) 

(Final Determination). On June 23, 2008, 

and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), 

we received timely-filed allegations 

from respondents, Maquilacero S.A. de 

C.V. (Maquilacero) and Productos 

Laminados de Monterrey SA. de C.V. 

(PROLAMSA), that the Department 

made ministerial errors with respect to 

its final dumping margin calculations 

for both companies. See Letter from 

Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. to the 

Department of Commerce, regarding 

‘‘Ministerial Error Comments,’’ dated 

June 23, 2008 (Maquilacero Ministerial 

Letter); see also Letter from Productos 

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

regarding ‘‘Ministerial Error 

Comments,’’ dated June 23, 2008 

(PROLAMSA Ministerial Letter). On 

June 25, 2008, we received comments 

from petitioners regarding the 

ministerial errors alleged by 

PROLAMSA. See Letter from Petitioners 

to the Department, regarding the 

ministerial errors alleged by 

PROLAMSA, dated June 25, 2008. 

After analyzing respondents’

ministerial error comments, we have 

determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(e), that we made the following 

ministerial errors with respect to our 

final dumping margin calculations for 

Maquilacero and PROLAMSA. 

Maguilacero 

The Department has revised its 

margin calculation for Maquilacero with 

regard to certain expense adjustments. 

Specifically, the Department 

inadvertently did not adjust the 

comparison and U.S. market net prices 

for certain expenses reported in 

Maquilacero’s sales databases, i.e., 

maqhm06b and maqus06b.1 See 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES