52294 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

1Carpenter Technology Corporation, Valbruna 

Slater Stainless, Inc., Electralloy Corporation, a 

Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc. 

2 DHE incorrectly called this submission its 

‘‘rebuttal brief.’’

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter 

nor the manufacturer has its own rate, 

the cash-deposit rate will be 2.80 

percent, the all-others rate for this 

proceeding. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importer 

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 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative 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. E8–20928 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice 

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from 

India. This review covers sales of SSB 

from India with respect to two 

producers/exporters: D.H. Exports Pvt. 

Ltd. (‘‘DHE’’) and Sunflag Iron & Steel 

Co. Ltd. (‘‘Sunflag’’), during the period 

February 1, 2006, through January 31, 

2007. 

We have noted the changes made 

since the preliminary results in the 

‘‘Changes Since the Preliminary 

Results’’ section, below. The final 

results are listed below in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Devta Ohri or Scott Holland, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3853 and (202) 

482–1279, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SSB from 

India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India 

and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 

1995). On February 2, 2007, the 

Department published a notice in the 

Federal Register providing an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

request an administrative review of this 

order for the period February 1, 2006, 

through January 31, 2007. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 5007 

(February 2, 2007). The Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of this review on 

March 7, 2008. See Stainless Steel Bar 

From India: Notice of Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 12382 (March 7, 2008) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On March 20, 

2008, the Department published a 

correction notice to the Preliminary 

Results. See Stainless Steel Bar From 

India: Notice of Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 15049 

(March 20, 2008). 

Following the Preliminary Results, 

the Department issued two 

supplemental questionnaires to both 

DHE and Sunflag. The Department 

received DHE’s responses on March 20, 

2008, and April 2, 2008. The 

Department received Sunflag’s 

responses on April 2, 2008, and July 7, 

2008. On June 24, 2008, the Department 

published a notice extending the 

deadline for these final results to 

September 3, 2008. See Stainless Steel 

Bar From India: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Final Results of the 

2006–2007 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 35639 

(June 24, 2008). 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

On July 16, 2008, the Petitioners 1 and 

DHE submitted case briefs.2 In its case 

brief, DHE requested that the 

Department consider the purchase order 

date as the U.S. date of sale, rather than 

the invoice date. To support this 

request, DHE provided the Department 

with unsolicited new information in the 

form of a revised U.S. sales database 

containing purchase order dates for its 

U.S. sales. On July 17, 2008, the 

Petitioners filed a rebuttal brief. The 

Petitioners requested that the 

Department reject and return to DHE the 

new factual information submitted in its 

case brief. According to the Petitioners, 

the Department did not request this new 

date of sale information and the 

deadline for the submission of new 

factual information had passed, as per 

19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). On July 17, 2008, 

the Department rejected DHE’s case 

brief because it contained unsolicited 

new factual information. See July 17, 

2008, Letter from Brandon Farlander to 

DHE, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 1117 of 

the main Department building. The 

Department instructed DHE to re-file its 

case brief excluding the unsolicited new 

factual information relating to purchase 

order date. DHE submitted its revised 

case brief, excluding the unsolicited 

new factual information, on July 21, 

2008. 

On July 22, 2008, Sunflag filed a 

rebuttal brief. On August 8, 2008, the 

Department rejected Sunflag’s July 22, 

2008 (dated July 19, 2008) rebuttal brief 

because it contained unsolicited new 

factual information relating to certain 

rent paid to affiliate Ridge Farm 

Developers. See August 8, 2008, Letter 

from Brandon Farlander to Sunflag, 

which is on file in the CRU in room 

1117 of the main Department building. 

The Department instructed Sunflag to 

re-file its rebuttal brief excluding the 

unsolicited new factual information. On 

August 18, 2008, the Department 

received Sunflag’s revised rebuttal brief, 

excluding the unsolicited new factual 

information. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of 

stainless steel in straight lengths that 

have been either hot-rolled, forged, 

turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or 

otherwise cold-finished, or ground, 

having a uniform solid cross-section 

along their whole length in the shape of 

circles, segments of circles, ovals, 

rectangles (including squares), triangles, 

hexagons, octagons, or other convex 

polygons. SSB includes cold-finished 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52295 

SSBs that are turned or ground in 

straight lengths, whether produced from 

hot-rolled bar or from straightened and 

cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that 

have indentations, ribs, grooves, or 

other deformations produced during the 

rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut-to-length flatrolled products (i.e., cut-to-length rolled 

products which if less than 4.75 mm in 

thickness have a width measuring at 

least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 

mm or more in thickness have a width 

which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 

least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., 

cold-formed products in coils, of any 

uniform solid cross-section along their 

whole length, which do not conform to 

the definition of flat-rolled products), 

and angles, shapes, and sections. 

The SSB subject to these reviews is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 

7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 

7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 

7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

On May 23, 2005, the Department 

issued a final scope ruling that SSB 

manufactured in the United Arab 

Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod 

from India is not subject to the scope of 

this order. See Memorandum from Team 

to Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from 

India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 

India: Final Scope Ruling,’’ dated May 

23, 2005, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit in room 1117 of the main 

Department building. See also Notice of 

Scope Rulings, 70 FR 55110 (September 

20, 2005). 

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is 

February 1, 2006, through January 31, 

2007. 

Applicable Statute 

Unless otherwise indicated, all 

statutory citations are to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). In 

addition, all references to the 

Department of Commerce’s regulations 

are to 19 CFR Part 351. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this review 

are addressed in the September 3, 2008, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

2006–2007 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Bar from India’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Attached to this 

notice as an appendix is a list of the 

issues which parties have raised and to 

which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s CRU, which is located 

in room 1117 of the main Department 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made adjustments to 

the Preliminary Results calculations for 

DHE and Sunflag. Brief descriptions of 

the company-specific changes are 

discussed below. 

A. DHE 

On March 27, 2008, the Department 

requested that DHE report the per-unit 

entered value of subject merchandise 

that entered into the United States 

during the POR. DHE submitted this 

information on April 2, 2008. However, 

DHE calculated the per-unit entered 

value by dividing the total entered 

values for all shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR by the sum 

of the total quantities entered during the 

POR, i.e., a simple average of all 

shipments. 

For the final results, we have recalculated the per-unit entered value 

based upon a ratio of the invoice 

specific, total entered value, to the total 

quantity that is reflected on the U.S. 

Customs Form 7501 documentation 

supplied by DHE, rather than an average 

of all shipments. See Final Results 

Calculation Memorandum for D.H. 

Exports Pvt. Ltd., dated September 3, 

2008. 

B. Sunflag 

For the final results, we are adjusting 

Sunflag’s general and administrative 

expense ratio upward to account for rent 

paid to affiliate Ridge Farm Developers 

for leased office space. See Final Results 

Calculation Memorandum for Sunflag 

Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., dated September 

3, 2008 (‘‘Sunflag Final Calculation 

Memorandum’’). We have also increased 

Sunflag’s cost of production by 

including interest on an unsecured 

interest-free loan from an affiliate. See 

Sunflag Final Calculation 

Memorandum. 

Results of the COP Test 

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 cost of 

production (‘‘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. Where 20 percent 

or more of a respondent’s sales of a 

given product during the POR were at 

prices less than the COP, we determined 

such sales of that model were made in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time in accordance 

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

Act. Because we compared prices to the 

POR-average COP, we also determined 

that such sales were not made 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, for both DHE 

and Sunflag, we disregarded these 

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. 

Final Results of Review 

As a final result of our review, we 

find that the following weighted-average 

percentage margins exist for the period 

February 1, 2006, through January 31, 

2007: 

Exporter/Manufacturer 

Weighted-average margin 

percentage 

D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd. ........... 10.21 

Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 6.08 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. For 

DHE and Sunflag, the Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for 

all sales made by respondents for which 

they have reported the importer of 

record and the entered value of the U.S. 

sales, we have calculated importerspecific 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 have used Sunflag’s reported 

entered values for the final results. 

However, as noted above in the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52296 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

‘‘Changes Since the Preliminary 

Results’’ section, we have adjusted 

DHE’s reported entered values. 

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 importer-specific ad valorem 

rates based on the Sunflag’s entered 

values and DHE’s adjusted entered 

values. 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 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 applies to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by the respondent 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 all-others 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 antidumping duty 

deposits are effective for all shipments 

of SSB from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption, effective on or after the 

publication date of these final results of 

administrative review, as provided by 

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

deposit rates for the reviewed company 

will be the rate listed above (except no 

cash deposit will be required if a 

company’s weighted-average margin is 

de minimis); (2) for merchandise 

exported by manufacturers or exporters 

not covered in this review but covered 

in the original less-than-fair-value 

investigation or a previous review, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

most recent rate published in the final 

determination or final results for which 

the manufacturer or exporter received 

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, the 

previous review, or the original 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous reviews, 

the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established 

in the less than fair value investigation. 

See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 

1994). These cash deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until publication 

of the final results of the next 

administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of review in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: September 3, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

List of Comments in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comments Relating to D.H. Exports Pvt. Ltd. 

Comment 1: Alleged Missing Attachments 

Comment 2: Direct Material Costs—Use of 

Pre-POR Costs 

Comments Relating to Sunflag Iron & Steel 

Co. Ltd. 

Comment 3: Sunflag’s Ferrochrome 

Purchases from Affiliate Navbharat 

Ventures 

Comment 4: Rent Sunflag Paid to Affiliate, 

Ridge Farm Developers, for New Delhi 

Office 

Comment 5: Rent Sunflag Paid to Affiliate, 

Haryana Television, for Faridabad Office 

Comment 6: Adjustment to Interest on 

Working Capital Loan 

Comment 7: Imputed Interest on Unsecured 

Interest-Free Loan from Affiliate Sunflag 

Ltd. UK 

Comment 8: Home Market Imputed Credit 

Expenses 

[FR Doc. E8–20925 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 

2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

a request for a new shipper review of 

the antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from the Peoples 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), received on 

July 11, 2008, meets the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for initiation. 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) of this 

new shipper review is January 1, 2008, 

through June 30, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Demitrios Kalogeropoulos or Robert 

Boiling, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2623 

and (202) 482–4207, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice announcing the 

antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from the PRC was 

published on January 4, 2005. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 

4, 2005). On July 11, 2008, we received 

a timely request for a new shipper 

review from Shanghai Fangjia Industry 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Fangjia’’) in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c) and 

351.214(d)(2). Shanghai Fangjia has 

certified that it purchased from Jiangsu 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES