Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52267 

1Petitioners are the United States Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel), Nucor Corporation 

(Nucor), and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal Steel 

USA). 

Participation Requirements 

All parties interested in participating 

in the 2nd U.S. Carpet Trade Mission to 

the Afghanistan International Carpet 

Fair in Kabul, Afghanistan must 

complete and submit an application 

package for consideration by the 

Department of Commerce. All 

applicants will be evaluated on their 

ability to meet certain conditions and 

best satisfy the selection criteria as 

outlined below. This trade mission is 

designed for a minimum of 5 and a 

maximum of 10 qualified companies. 

Participating companies must be 

incorporated or otherwise organized in 

the United States. 

There are no fees for participation in 

this mission. Lodging expenses 

including three nights in the four-star 

Serena Hotel in Kabul will be covered 

by the Export Promotion Agency of 

Afghanistan. Necessary transportation 

including airport pickup will be 

provided by the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, 

Afghanistan. Expenses for travel to 

Kabul, meals, and incidentals will be 

the responsibility of each mission 

participant. 

Conditions for Participation: 

• An applicant must submit a 

completed and signed mission 

application and supplemental 

application materials, including 

adequate information on the company’s: 

Products and/or services, primary 

market objectives, and goals for 

participation. If we receive an 

incomplete application, we may either 

reject the application, request additional 

information, or take the lack of 

information into account when we 

evaluate the applications. 

Selection Criteria for Participation: 

• Consistency of company’s goals 

with the scope and desired outcome of 

the mission; 

• Capacity and intent to import goods 

from Afghanistan, export equipment 

consistent with the scope and desired 

outcome of the mission, or capacity and 

intent to invest in Afghanistan. Timely 

receipt of the company’s signed and 

completed application, participation 

agreement. 

Additionally, U.S. exporters applying 

for this mission, such as carpet finishing 

machinery manufacturers or 

distributors, must certify that the 

company’s products or services are 

either produced in the United States, or, 

if not, are marketed under the name of 

a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one 

percent U.S. content. The production 

and content requirements do not apply 

to U.S. buyer and U.S. investor 

applicants. 

Referrals from political organizations 

and any documents, including the 

application, containing references to 

partisan political activities (including 

political contributions) will be removed 

from an applicant’s submission and not 

considered during the selection process. 

VIII. Timeframe for Recruitment and 

Applications 

Mission recruitment will be 

conducted in an open and public 

manner, including publication in the 

Federal Register, posting on the 

Commerce Department trade mission 

calendar (http://www.ita.doc.gov/ 

doctm/tmcal.html) and other Internet 

Web sites, press releases to general and 

trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, 

notices by industry trade associations 

and other multiplier groups, and 

publicity at industry meetings, 

symposia, conferences, and trade shows. 

The Office of Business Liaison and the 

International Trade Administration will 

explore and welcome outreach 

assistance from other interested 

organizations, including other U.S. 

Government agencies. 

Applications for the Mission will be 

made available July XX, 2008 through 

August 1, 2008. Applications can be 

completed on-line on the Afghanistan 

Investment and Reconstruction Task 

Force Web site at http://www.trade.gov/ 

afghanistan or can be obtained by 

contacting the U.S. Department of 

Commerce Afghanistan Investment and 

Reconstruction Task Force at 202–482–

1812, AfghanInfo@mail.doc.gov, or via 

the contact information below. 

The application deadline is August 1, 

2008. Completed applications should be 

submitted to the Afghanistan 

Investment and Reconstruction Task 

Force. Applications received after 

August 1, 2008 will be considered only 

if space and scheduling constraints 

permit. 

Disclaimer: Trade mission members 

participate in the trade mission and 

undertake related travel at their own 

risk and are advised to obtain insurance 

accordingly. Any question regarding 

insurance coverage must be resolved by 

the participant and its insurer of choice. 

The U.S. Government does not make 

any representations or guarantees as to 

the safety or security of participants. 

Companies should consult the State 

Department’s travel warning for 

Afghanistan: http://travel.state.gov/ 

travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_921.html. ITA 

will coordinate with the U.S. Embassy 

in Kabul to arrange for transportation of 

the mission participants to and from the 

airport and hotel. Transportation for 

certain optional activities, including 

visits to commercial sites in Kabul, may 

be provided by the Export Promotion 

Agency of Afghanistan. The hotel that 

will be the primary venue for the 

mission is a luxury hotel and does have 

strong security measures in place. 

The U.S. Government does not make 

any representations or guarantees as to 

the commercial success of businesses 

which participate in this trade mission. 

Contact Information: Noor Alam, 

Afghanistan Investment and 

Reconstruction Task Force, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington, 

DC 20230, Tel: (202) 482–1812, Fax: 

(202) 482–0980, e-mail: 

AfghanInfo@ita.doc.gov. 

Noor Alam, 

International Trade Specialist, Afghanistan 

Investment and Reconstruction Task Force, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

[FR Doc. E8–20917 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–816] 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From the Republic 

of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results 

of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

petitioners,1 the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting the fourteenth 

administrative review of the 

antidumping order on corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products 

(CORE) from the Republic of (Korea). 

This review covers seven manufacturers 

and exporters (collectively, the 

respondents) of the subject 

merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. (LG), 

Haewon MSC Co. Ltd. (Haewon), 

Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk), 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu); 

Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); Pohang Iron 

& Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang 

Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) 

(collectively, the POSCO Group); and 

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(Union). The period of review (POR) is 

August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. 

We preliminarily determine that during 

the POR, Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO 

Group, and Union, made sales of subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(NV). In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52268 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

2See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 

Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 53370, 53375 

(September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of Final 

Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 

Republic of Korea, 72 FR 13086 (March 20, 2007); 

and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea; Notice of 

Amended Final Results of the Twelfth 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 20815 (April 26, 

2007)). 

3Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, 

Markets and Merchandise. 

Section B: Comparison Market Sales. 

Section C: Sales to the United States. 

Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value. 

selected for individual review, we have 

preliminarily determined a weightedaverage margin for those companies that 

were not selected for individual review. 

If these preliminary results are adopted 

in the final results of this administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska (Union), Cindy Robinson 

(Dongbu), Christopher Hargett (HYSCO) 

and Victoria Cho (the POSCO Group, 

and non-selected companies), AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8362, (202) 482–

3797, (202) 482–4161, and (202) 482–

5075, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 19, 1993, the Department 

published the antidumping order on 

CORE from Korea. See Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 

(August 19, 1993) (Orders on Certain 

Steel from Korea). On August 2, 2007, 

we published in the Federal Register 

the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 42383 

(August 2, 2007). On August 31, 2007, 

respondents and petitioners requested a 

review of Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO 

Group, Union, Dongkuk, Haewon and 

LG. The Department initiated this 

review on September 19, 2007. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007). 

On December 6, 2007, the Department 

selected Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO 

Group and Union as mandatory 

respondents in this review. See 

Memorandum from Christopher Hargett, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, through James Terpstra, 

Program Manager, to Melissa Skinner, 

Director, Office 3, entitled ‘‘2006–2007 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic of 

Korea: Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review,’’ dated December 6, 

2007. The Department indicated that it 

would calculate a weighted-average of 

the mandatory respondents’ margins to 

apply to those companies not selected 

for individual examination. 

During the most recently completed 

segments of the proceeding in which 

Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, 

and Union participated,2 the 

Department disregarded sales below the 

cost of production (COP) that failed the 

cost test. Therefore, pursuant to section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), we had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales by these companies of the 

foreign like product under consideration 

for the determination of NV in this 

review were made at prices below the 

COP. We instructed Dongbu, HYSCO, 

the POSCO Group, and Union to 

respond to sections A–D of the initial 

questionnaire,3 which we issued on 

December 6, 2007. 

On May 2, 2008, the Department 

published a notice extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results of the fourteenth administrative 

review to September 2, 2008. See 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

24220 (May 2, 2008). 

Dongbu 

On January 22, 2008, Dongbu 

submitted its section A response to the 

initial questionnaire. On February 5, 

2008, Dongbu submitted its sections B–

D response to the initial questionnaire. 

On July 14, 2007, Dongbu submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response 

for sections A–D. 

HYSCO 

On February 4, 2008, HYSCO 

submitted its section A–D response to 

the Department’s initial questionnaire. 

HYSCO submitted its responses to the 

Department’s two section A–D 

supplemental questionnaires on May 15, 

2008, and June 19, 2008, respectively. 

The POSCO Group 

On February 4, 2008, the POSCO 

Group submitted its sections A–D 

response to the Department’s initial 

questionnaire. On June 10, 2008, the 

POSCO Group submitted its sections 

A–C supplemental questionnaire 

responses. The POSCO Group submitted 

its section D supplemental 

questionnaire responses on June 12, 

2008, June 18, 2008, and July 29, 2008, 

respectively. 

On August 31, 2007, the POSCO 

Group requested revocation, in part, of 

the antidumping duty order of CORE 

from Korea with respect to the POSCO 

Group. On June 11, 2008, the POSCO 

Group withdrew its request for 

revocation and continued to participate 

as a mandatory respondent in this 

proceeding. 

On January 22, 2008, Union submitted 

its section A response to the initial 

questionnaire. On February 4, 2008, 

Union submitted its sections B–C 

response to the initial questionnaire. 

Union submitted its response to the 

Department’s sections A–D 

supplemental questionnaire on July 16, 

2008. 

Period of Review 

The POR covered by this review is 

August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

This order covers flat-rolled carbon 

steel products, of rectangular shape, 

either clad, plated, or coated with 

corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, 

aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickelor iron-based alloys, whether or not 

corrugated or painted, varnished or 

coated with plastics or other 

nonmetallic substances in addition to 

the metallic coating, in coils (whether or 

not in successively superimposed 

layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or 

greater, or in straight lengths which, if 

of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, 

are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 

which measure at least 10 times the 

thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 

millimeters or more are of a width 

which exceeds 150 millimeters and 

measure at least twice the thickness, as 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item numbers 

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 

7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 

7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52269 

4See the Department’s September 2, 2008, 

Memorandum from the Team to Melissa Skinner, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, titled, 

‘‘Whether to Collapse the Antidumping Duty Order 

with Respect to Subject Merchandise Produced and 

Exported by Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) 

and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) 

(collectively, the POSCO Group); and Union Steel 

Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Union)’’ (the collapsing 

memo). 

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 

7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. 

Included in the order are flat-rolled 

products of non-rectangular crosssection where such cross-section is 

achieved subsequent to the rolling 

process including products which have 

been beveled or rounded at the edges 

(i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked 

after rolling’’). Excluded from this order 

are flat-rolled steel products either 

plated or coated with tin, lead, 

chromium, chromium oxides, both tin 

and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both 

chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tinfree steel’’), whether or not painted, 

varnished or coated with plastics or 

other nonmetallic substances in 

addition to the metallic coating. Also 

excluded from this order are clad 

products in straight lengths of 0.1875 

inch or more in composite thickness 

and of a width which exceeds 150 

millimeters and measures at least twice 

the thickness. Also excluded from this 

order are certain clad stainless flatrolled products, which are three-layered 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75 

millimeters in composite thickness that 

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled 

product clad on both sides with 

stainless steel in a 20%–60%–20% 

ratio. 

These HTSUS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written descriptions 

remain dispositive. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all CORE 

products produced by the respondents, 

covered by the scope of the order, and 

sold in the home market during the POR 

to be foreign like products for the 

purpose of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to CORE sold in 

the United States. 

Where there were no sales in the 

ordinary course of trade of identical 

merchandise in the home market 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 in Appendix V of 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire. In making the product 

comparisons, we matched foreign like 

products based on the Appendix V 

physical characteristics reported by 

each respondent. 

Collapsing the POSCO Group and 

Union 

On April 9, 2008, U.S. Steel submitted 

comments asking the Department to 

seek additional information regarding 

the POSCO Group’s and Union’s interest 

in each other’s company. We have 

received additional information from 

the POSCO Group and Union. Based on 

our analysis of the facts of this case and 

the evidence on the record, we will treat 

the POSCO Group and Union as 

separate entities for these preliminary 

results. While the POSCO Group and 

Union are affiliated pursuant to section 

771(33)(E) of the Act, we have 

determined that the criteria for 19 CFR 

351.401(f) have not been satisfied. 

Therefore, for these preliminary results, 

the Department will not collapse the 

POSCO Group and Union. Due to the 

proprietary nature of this issue, see the 

collapsing memo.4

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of CORE 

by the respondents to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared the Export Price (EP) or 

Constructed Export Price (CEP) to the 

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price/ 

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. In 

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of 

the Act, we calculated monthly 

weighted-average prices for NV and 

compared these to individual U.S. 

transactions. 

Export Price/Constructed Export Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in 

accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) 

of the Act. We calculated EP when the 

merchandise was sold by the producer 

or exporter outside of the United States 

directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation and when CEP was not 

otherwise warranted based on the facts 

on the record. We calculated CEP for 

those sales where a person in the United 

States, affiliated with the foreign 

exporter or acting for the account of the 

exporter, made the sale to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States of the subject merchandise. 

In determining whether to classify 

U.S. sales as either EP or CEP sales, the 

Department must examine the totality of 

the circumstances surrounding the U.S. 

sales process, and assess where the 

reviewed sales or agreements of sale 

were made for purposes of section 

772(b) of the Act. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 

deductions, where appropriate, for 

movement expenses including inland 

freight from plant or warehouse to port 

of exportation, foreign brokerage, 

handling and loading charges, export 

duties, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, 

warehousing, and U.S. duties. 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated EP for a number 

of Union’s and HYSCO’s U.S. sales 

because these sales were made before 

the date of importation and were sales 

directly to unaffiliated customers in the 

United States, and because CEP 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated. We based EP on the packed 

and/or delivered duty paid prices to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States. We made deductions for 

movement expenses in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight from the mill to the U.S. 

border, inland freight from the border to 

the customer or warehouse, and U.S. 

brokerage and handling. We adjusted for 

direct expenses (credit expenses) in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP sales where 

the record established that sales made 

by Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, 

and Union were made in the United 

States after importation. Dongbu’s, 

HYSCO’s, the POSCO Group’s, and 

Union’s respective affiliates in the 

United States (1) took title to the subject 

merchandise and (2) invoiced and 

received payment from the unaffiliated 

U.S. customers for their sales of the 

subject merchandise to those U.S. 

customers. Thus, where appropriate, the 

Department has determined that these 

U.S. sales should be classified as CEP 

transactions under section 772(b) of the 

Act. Where appropriate, we also made 

deductions from the starting price for 

foreign inland freight, foreign inland 

insurance, foreign brokerage and 

handling, international freight, marine 

insurance, U.S. warehousing expenses, 

U.S. wharfage, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, loading 

expenses, other U.S. transportation 

expenses, U.S. customs duties, 

commissions, credit expenses, letter of 

credit expenses, warranty expenses, 

other direct selling expenses, inventory 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52270 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

5See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

51584, 51587 (September 10, 2007) (unchanged in 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of 

Final Results of the Thirteenth Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 14220 (March 17, 2008); Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 

Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 28676 (May 22, 

2007)). 

carrying costs incurred in the United 

States, and other indirect selling 

expenses in the country of manufacture 

and the United States associated with 

economic activity in the United States. 

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

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, 

we made an adjustment for CEP profit. 

Where appropriate, we added interest 

revenue to the gross unit price. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

normal practice, for Union we added the 

reported duty drawback to the gross unit 

price. We did so in accordance with the 

Department’s long-standing test, which 

requires that: (1) The import duty and 

rebate be directly linked to, and 

dependent upon, one another; and (2) 

the company claiming the adjustment 

demonstrates that there were sufficient 

imports of imported raw materials to 

account for the duty drawback received 

on the exports of the manufactured 

product. See Certain Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 

From India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 44086, 44087 (August 7, 

2007) (unchanged in Certain 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip from India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 7252 (February 7, 2008)); 

see also section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. 

HYSCO’s Sales of Subject Merchandise 

That Were Further Manufactured and 

Sold as Non-Subject Merchandise in the 

United States 

In its Section A questionnaire 

response and its June 19, 2008 

submission, HYSCO requested that the 

Department excuse it from reporting 

information for certain POR sales of 

subject merchandise imported by its 

wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, HYSCO 

America Company (HAC), that were 

further manufactured after importation 

and sold as non-subject merchandise in 

the United States, claiming that 

determining CEP for sales through HAC 

would be unreasonably burdensome. 

Section 772(e) of the Act provides that 

when the value added in the United 

States by an affiliated party is likely to 

exceed substantially the value of the 

subject merchandise, the Department 

shall use one of the following prices to 

determine CEP if there is a sufficient 

quantity of sales to provide a reasonable 

basis of comparison and the use of such 

sales is appropriate: (1) The price of 

identical subject merchandise sold by 

the exporter or producer to an 

unaffiliated person; or (2) the price of 

other subject merchandise sold by the 

exporter or producer to an unaffiliated 

person. 

The record evidence shows that the 

value added by the affiliated party to the 

subject merchandise after importation in 

the United States was significantly 

greater than the 65 percent threshold we 

use in determining whether the value 

added in the United States by an 

affiliated party substantially exceeds the 

value of the subject merchandise. See 19 

CFR 351.402(c)(2); see also HYSCO’s 

Second Supplemental Sections A–C 

Response, dated June 19, 2008, at S–6. 

We then considered whether there were 

sales of identical subject merchandise or 

other subject merchandise sold in 

sufficient quantities by the exporter or 

producer to an unaffiliated person that 

could provide a reasonable basis of 

comparison. In addition to the sales to 

HAC that were further manufactured, 

HYSCO also had CEP sales of similar, 

but not identical, subject merchandise 

to unaffiliated customers in the United 

States in back-to-back transactions 

through another HYSCO affiliate in the 

United States, Hyundai HYSCO USA 

(HHU), and EP sales through an 

unaffiliated trading company. 

Decisions as to the appropriate 

methodology for determining CEP for 

sales involving further manufacturing 

generally must be made on a case-bycase basis. In this instance, we find that 

there is a reasonable quantity of sales of 

identical or other subject merchandise 

to an unaffiliated person. See 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai 

HYSCO,’’ dated September 2, 2008. 

Further, another reasonable method for 

determining CEP for the HAC CEP sales 

is not evident. In this case, HYSCO 

reported that the value added after 

importation is very large and the further 

manufacturing very complex. See 

HYSCO’s Second Supplemental 

Sections A–C Response, dated June 19, 

2008, at S–6. Therefore, consistent with 

the previous administrative review of 

CORE from Korea, and similar to our 

practice in other cases,5 we relied on 

HYSCO’s other sales of similar 

merchandise to unaffiliated parties in 

the United States as the basis for 

calculating CEP for HYSCO’s sales 

through HAC. 

Normal Value 

Based on a comparison of the 

aggregate quantity of home market and 

U.S. sales, we determined that the 

quantity of the foreign like product sold 

in the exporting country was sufficient 

to permit a proper comparison with the 

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States, pursuant to section 773(a) 

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, 

we based NV on the price at which the 

foreign like product was first sold for 

consumption in the home market, in the 

usual commercial quantities and in the 

ordinary course of trade. 

Where appropriate, we deducted 

rebates, discounts, inland freight (offset, 

where applicable, by freight revenue), 

inland insurance, and packing. 

Additionally, we made adjustments to 

NV, where appropriate, for credit 

expenses, warranty expenses, post-sale 

warehousing, and differences in weight 

basis. We also made adjustments, where 

appropriate, for home market indirect 

selling expenses and inventory carrying 

costs to offset U.S. commissions. 

We also increased NV by U.S. packing 

costs in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made 

adjustments to NV for differences in 

cost attributable to differences in 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise, pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 

For purposes of calculating NV, 

section 771(16) of the Act defines 

‘‘foreign like product’’ as merchandise 

which is either (1) identical or (2) 

similar to the merchandise sold in the 

United States. When no identical 

products are sold in the home market, 

the products which are most similar to 

the product sold in the United States are 

identified. For the non-identical or most 

similar products which are identified 

based on the Department’s product 

matching criteria, an adjustment is 

made to the home market sales price to 

account for the actual physical 

differences between the products sold in 

the United States and the home market 

or third country market. See 19 CFR 

351.411 and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 

the Act. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 

NV based on sales in the comparison 

market at the same level of trade (LOT) 

as the CEP sales, to the extent 

practicable. When there were no sales at 

the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales 

to comparison market sales at a different 

LOT. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to 

determine whether CEP sales and NV 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52271 

sales were at different LOTs, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated (or arm’s-length) 

customers. If the comparison market 

sales are at a different LOT and the 

differences affect price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between sales at 

different LOTs in the country in which 

NV is determined, we will make an LOT 

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

the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT 

is at a more advanced stage of 

distribution than the CEP LOT and the 

data available do not provide an 

appropriate basis to determine an LOT 

adjustment, we will grant a CEP offset, 

as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 

1997). 

We did not make an LOT adjustment 

under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because, as 

there was only one home market LOT 

for each respondent, we were unable to 

identify a pattern of consistent price 

differences attributable to differences in 

LOTs (see 19 CFR 351.412(d)). Under 19 

CFR 351.412(f), we are preliminarily 

granting a CEP offset for Dongbu, 

HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union 

because the NV for each company is at 

a more advanced LOT than the LOT for 

their U.S. CEP sales. 

For a detailed description of our LOT 

methodology and a summary of 

company-specific LOT findings for 

these preliminary results, see the 

September 2, 2008, ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co., 

Ltd;’’ ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for 

Hyundai HYSCO;’’ ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for the POSCO Group;’’

and ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for 

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.;’’

the public versions of which are on file 

in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 

of the main Department building. 

Cost of Production 

A. Calculation of COP 

We are investigating COP for Dongbu, 

HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union 

because during the most recently 

completed segments of the proceeding 

in which Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO 

Group, and Union participated, the 

Department found and disregarded sales 

that failed the cost test for each of these 

companies. We calculated companyspecific COPs for Dongbu, HYSCO, the 

POSCO Group, and Union based on the 

sum of each respondent’s cost of 

materials and fabrication for the foreign 

like product, plus amounts for homemarket selling expenses, selling, general 

and administrative expenses (SG&A), 

and packing costs in accordance with 

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. See ‘‘Test 

of Home Market Sales Prices’’ section 

below for treatment of home market 

selling expenses. 

We relied on the COP data as 

submitted by Dongbu, HYSCO, and 

Union. We also relied on the COP data 

submitted by the POSCO Group except 

in the calculation of G&A expense ratios 

for POSCO and POCOS. Specifically, we 

disallowed the gains related to trading 

securities as offsets to G&A expenses in 

the calculation of POSCO’s G&A 

expense rate and, for POCOS, we 

disallowed the gains on tangible assets 

and the gains related to available for 

sale securities as offsets to the G&A 

expenses. See Memorandum from 

Frederick W. Mines to Neal M. Halper, 

Director Office of Accounting, titled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—POSCO,’’ dated 

September 2, 2008. 

B. Test of Home-Market Prices 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, as required under sections 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, we 

compared the weighted-average COP 

figures to home market sales of the 

foreign like product and we examined 

whether (1) within an extended period 

of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities, and (2) such sales 

were made at prices which permitted 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to 

the home market prices (not including 

VAT), less any applicable movement 

charges, discounts, and rebates. 

C. Results of COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, we may disregard below-COP sales 

in the determination of NV if these sales 

have been made within an extended 

period of time in substantial quantities 

and were not at prices which permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. Where 20 percent or 

more of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product during the POR were at prices 

less than the COP for at least six months 

of the POR, we determined that sales of 

that model were made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities’’ within an extended period 

of time, in accordance with sections 

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

prices of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product were below the per-unit COP at 

the time of sale and below the weightedaverage per-unit costs for the POR, we 

determined that sales were not at prices 

which would permit recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act. In such cases, we disregarded 

the below-cost sales in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product because we determined 

that the below-cost sales were not made 

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’

We tested and identified below-cost 

home market sales for Dongbu, HYSCO, 

the POSCO Group, and Union. We 

disregarded individual below-cost sales 

of a given product and used the 

remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the 

September 2, 2008, ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co., 

Ltd.’’; ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for 

Hyundai HYSCO’’; ‘‘Calculation 

Memorandum for the POSCO Group’’; 

and ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for 

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’

Arm’s-Length Sales 

Dongbu, HYSCO, and the POSCO 

Group also reported that they made 

sales in the home market to affiliated 

parties. 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. , sales at arm’s length. See 

19 CFR 351.403(c). 

To test whether these sales were made 

at arm’s length, we compared the 

starting prices of sales to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, discounts and packing. 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. See Notice of Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative: 

Ninth Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020 

(August 8, 2006) (unchanged in Notice 

of Final Results of the Ninth 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52272 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

14, 2007)); and 19 CFR 351.403(c). 

Conversely, where we found sales to the 

affiliated party that did not pass the 

arm’s-length test, all sales to that 

affiliated party have been excluded from 

the NV calculation. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). 

Currency Conversion 

For purposes of these preliminary 

results, we made currency conversions 

in accordance with section 773A(a) of 

the Act, based on the official exchange 

rates published by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of this review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Dongbu ......................................... 1.91 

HYSCO ......................................... 1.17 

The POSCO Group ...................... 0.79 

Union ............................................ 1.90 

Review-Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies: 6

LG, Haewon, and Dongkuk ... 1.69 

6This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected individual review, excluding de 

minimis margins or margins based entirely on 

adverse facts available. 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to the parties of this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

and/or written comments no later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are 

limited to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments and may be filed no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing the case briefs or comments. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities. Case and rebuttal 

briefs and comments must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). Further, parties 

submitting written comments are 

requested to provide the Department 

with an additional copy of the public 

version of any such comments on a 

diskette. 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

ordinarily will be held two days after 

the due date of the rebuttal briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, which 

will include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such comments, or 

at a hearing, if requested, within 120 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results. 

Assessment Rate 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by the 

respondent for which it has reported the 

importer of record and the entered value 

of the U.S. sales, we have calculated 

importer-specific 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. Where the 

respondent did not report the entered 

value for U.S. sales, we have calculated 

importer-specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem rates based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. 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 assessment instructions directly to 

CBP 15 days after publication of the 

final results of this review. 

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). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondents for which 

it did not know its merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 

68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of CORE for Korea 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rates for the companies listed 

above will be the rates established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit 

will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 

or investigated companies not listed 

above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent final 

results in which that manufacturer or 

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter 

is not a firm covered in these reviews, 

a prior review, or the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in these or any previous 

review conducted by the Department, 

the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 

percent, the all-others rate established 

in the LTFV. See Orders on Certain 

Steel from Korea. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20920 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES