Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

          - [A-583-831] 

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. 

# SUMMARY:

On August 3, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from Taiwan (72 FR 43236). This review covers three producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. We are rescinding the review with respect to nine companies because these companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. 

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

February 6, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background 

This review covers three producers/exporters. These companies are Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far), PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PFP Taiwan) and Yieh Trading Corp. (also known as Yieh Corp.). 

                    On August 3, 2007, the Department published in the                     **Federal Register**                     the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan.                     *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review*, 72 FR 43236 (Aug. 3, 2007) (                    *Preliminary Results*).                 

                    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In September 2007, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners [1]                                          (                    *i.e.*, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, United Auto Workers Local 3303 (formerly Butler Armco Independent Union), United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization) and Chia Far, the sole respondent participating in this review.                 

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

## 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                           ( print page 6933)                        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-chromium-cobalt 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 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 (ASTM) 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 (UNS) 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] 

## Period of Review 

The POR is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. 

## Partial Rescission of Review 

                    Nine of the companies that responded to the Department's questionnaire stated that they had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. These companies are: (1) Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd.; (2) Chien Shing Stainless Co.; (3) China Steel Corporation; (4) Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.; (5) Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd.; 6) Tang Eng Iron Works; (7) Yieh Loong Enterprise Co. Ltd.; (8) Yieh Mau Corp.; and (9) Yieh United Steel Corporation. We have confirmed this with data obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to these companies.                     *See*,                     *e.g.*,                     *Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,*72 FR 52065 (Sept. 12, 2007) (administrative review rescinded for companies that demonstrated they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR);                     *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) (administrative review rescinded for companies that demonstrated they had no shipments during the POR).                 

## Emerdex Companies 

                    The Department finds that it is appropriate to rescind the instant review with respect to the Emerdex                           ( print page 6934)                        Companies named by the petitioners in their review request because the Department found in the 2003-2004 administrative review of this order that the Emerdex companies are U.S. entities.                     *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review*, 71 FR 45521, 45524-45525 (Aug. 9, 2006) (unchanged in                     *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)). We note that the petitioners in the instant review have not provided any additional information demonstrating that the Emerdex companies for which they have requested a review are located in Taiwan. Consequently, consistent with the Department's findings in the prior review, we are rescinding this review with regard to the Emerdex companies.                 

## Facts Available 

                    In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. because these companies failed to respond to the Department's requests for information.                     *See Preliminary Results*, 72 FR at 43239-40.                 

                    Section 776(a) of the Act, provides that the Department will apply “facts otherwise available” if,                     *inter alia*, necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: (1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department; (3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified.                 

                    In August 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department's questionnaire. The original deadline to file a response was September 1, 2006. Because PFP Taiwan did not respond to this request for information, on September 7, 2006, the Department issued a letter to PFP Taiwan affording it a second opportunity to respond to the Department's request for information. However, PFP Taiwan also did not respond to this second questionnaire. On July 31, 2007, the Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of the questionnaire to this company.                     *See*                     the July 31, 2007, Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, entitled, “Confirmation of Delivery of the Questionnaire in the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan.”                 

                    Furthermore, one additional company, Yieh Corp., claimed that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, according to data obtained from CBP, it appeared that Yieh Corp. shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On January 29, 2007, we placed copies of the entry documentation related to these shipments on the record of this proceeding.                     *See*                     the January 29, 2007, Memorandum to the File from Jill Pollack, Senior Analyst, entitled, “2005-2006 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Entry Documents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).”                 

On February 1, 2007, we requested that Yieh Corp. explain why it did not report the entries in question, and on March 5, 2007, Yieh Corp. responded by stating that it had inadvertently overlooked the entries. Therefore, again on May 24, 2007, we informed Yieh Corp. that it was required to respond to the Department's questionnaire. However, Yieh Corp. failed to file a response. 

                    By failing to respond to the Department's questionnaire, PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as in the preliminary results, the Department finds that the use of total facts available for PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act.                     *See Preliminary Results*, 72 FR at 43239-40.                 

## Adverse Facts Available 

                    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information.                     *See*,                     *e.g.*,                     *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India*, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005);                     *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil*, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.”                     *See*                     Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.”                     *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule*, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).                     *See also*,                     *Nippon Steel Corp.*                     v.                     *United States*, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (                    *Nippon*). We find that PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. did not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available.                     *See Nippon*, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.                 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as adverse facts available (AFA) information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any other information placed on the record. 

                    The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.”                     *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances*, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002);                     *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan*, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998).                

                    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 21.10 percent, which is the highest appropriate dumping margin assigned in this or any prior segment of the proceeding, to PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA rule (                    *i.e.*, we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act).                 

                    For the reasons stated in the                     *Preliminary Results,*                     we continue to find that the information upon which this margin is based has probative value and                           ( print page 6935)                        thus satisfies the corroboration requirements of section 776(c) of the Act.                     *See Preliminary Results,*                     72 FR at 43240.                 

## Cost of Production 

                    As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Chia Far made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below its costs of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. For these final results, we performed the cost test following the same methodology as in the                     *Preliminary Results.*

                    We found that more than 20 percent of Chia Far's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.                     *See*                     sections 773(b)(2)(B)-(D) of the Act.                 

Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Chia Far made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

## Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo) accompanying this notice, which is adopted by this notice. 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 Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building. 

                    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at                     *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/​frn/​.*                     The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.                 

## Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations for Chia Far. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. 

## Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006: 

*Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage*

Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd., 1.41, PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd., 21.10, Yieh Trading Corp./Yieh Corp. 21.10. 

## Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 

                    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific                     *ad valorem*                     duty assessment rates for Chia Far based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales.                 

                    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 intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of 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 companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.                 

## Cash Deposit Requirements 

                    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of SSSSC from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent,                     *de minimis*                     within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, 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 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 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea,*64 FR 40555, 40557 (July 27, 1999) . These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.                 

## 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 double antidumping duties. 

## Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

# Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum 

                        1. Unreported Sales                               ( print page 6936)    

2. Home Market Rebates 

3. Affiliation Between Chia Far Industrial Co. Ltd. and Lucky Medsup 

4. Lucky Medsup's U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

5. Cost of Manufacturing 

6. Clerical Error in the Preliminary Results 

7. Affiliated Party Purchases 

# Footnotes

1.                             We note that, on October 16, 2007, we rejected the petitioners' case and rebuttal briefs because of the improper bracketing (                        *i.e.*, claims for treatment as business proprietary information) of public information.                         *See*                         the September 26, 2007, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the file entitled, “Conversation with Counsel for Chia Far industrial Factory Co., Ltd., Regarding the Bracketing of Information Contained in the Petitioners' September 10, 2007, and September 17, 2007, Submissions in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan.” The petitioners resubmitted properly-bracketed versions of both their case and rebuttal briefs on October 18, 2007.                     
        Back to Citation      

2.                             Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company.                     
        Back to Citation      

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

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

5.                             This list of uses is illustrated and provided for descriptive purposes only.                     
        Back to Citation      

6.                             GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.                     
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. E8-2181 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P