Source: https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2009/09/08/E9-21594.html
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 11:41:17
Document Index: 378465134

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 73', 'art, 74', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art, 73', 'art, 74']

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 46110-46115 [E9-21594] :: International Trade Administration :: Department Of Commerce :: Regulation Tracker :: Justia
Justia Regulation Tracker Department Of Commerce International Trade Administration Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 46110-46115 [E9-21594]
Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 46110-46115 [E9-21594]
Download as PDF 46110 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices Dated: August 31, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–21614 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] (CORE) from the Republic of (Korea). This review covers seven manufacturers and/or exporters (collectively, the respondents) of the subject merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. (LG Chem), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd. (Haewon), Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. We preliminarily determine that Union made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). We preliminarily determine that HYSCO and POSCO have not made sales below NV. In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for an individual review, we have preliminarily determined a 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. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure (Union, POSCO, and all others), and Christopher Hargett (HYSCO), 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) 482–5973, (202) 482–4161, and (202) 482–5075, respectively. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: otherwise specified by the Department. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(b)(4), representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative’s client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Background DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–816] jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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 timely requests, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the fifteenth administrative review of the antidumping order on corrosion– resistant carbon steel flat products VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:32 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 1, 2008, we published in the Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 44966 (August 1, 2008). Between August 20, 2008, and September 2, 2008, respondents and petitioners1 requested 1 Petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), Nucor Corporation PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 a review of Dongbu, HYSCO, POSCO, Union, Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk), Haewon and LG Chem. The Department initiated a review of each of the companies for which a review was requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56794 (September 30, 2008). On December 8, 2008, the Department selected HYSCO 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 ‘‘2007–2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,’’ dated December 8, 2008. 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. On July 2, 2009, we published the notice of rescission of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to Dongkuk because it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.2 On July 8, 2009, we reconsidered our resources and found it practicable to review POSCO as a voluntary respondent. Specifically, in other antidumping duty cases being conducted by the office, several review requests were withdrawn and/or respondents have ceased participating in the review. Moreover, POSCO submitted a timely response to the Department’s questionnaire. Therefore, we selected POSCO as a voluntary respondent in the instant review.3 At the time we issued the questionnaire, during the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in which HYSCO and Union participated,4 the Department (Nucor), and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal Steel USA). 2 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, In Part, 74 FR 28664 (June 17, 2009). 3 See memo from James Terpstra to Melissa Skinner entitled ‘‘2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Selection of POSCO as a Voluntary Respondent,’’ dated July 8, 2009. 4 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Thirteenth Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 14220 (March 17, 2008) (CORE 13 Final Results); see also Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM 08SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 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 HYSCO and Union to respond to sections A–E of the initial questionnaire,5 which we issued on December 8, 2008. In its voluntary response, POSCO responded to sections A–E of the questionnaire. On April 27, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fifteenth administrative review to August 31, 2009.6 HYSCO On February 11, 2009, HYSCO submitted its sections A–D response to the Department’s initial questionnaire. HYSCO submitted its response to the Department’s supplemental questionnaires for sections A–C on May 21, 2009, and July 23, 2009, and submitted its response to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire for section D on August 27, 2009. HYSCO submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009. The Department has used the COP database submitted on May 21, 2009, for these preliminary results, and will take into consideration the COP database submitted on August 27, 2009, for the final results. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Union On January 14, 2009, Union submitted its section A response to the initial questionnaire. On February 5, 2009, Union submitted its response to sections B and C of the Department’s questionnaire. On April 9, 2009, and June 24, 2009, Union submitted its responses to the Department’s supplemental questionnaires for sections A–C. Union submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009. On August 27, 2009, Union submitted Twelfth Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 72 FR 13086 (March 20, 2007) (CORE 12 Final Results). 5 Section 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; Section E: Further Manufacturing. 6 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, 74 FR 19049 (April 27, 2009). VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:32 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 its response to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire for section D. The Department has used the COP database submitted on February 4, 2009, for these preliminary results, and will take into consideration the COP database submitted on August 27, 2009, for the final results. POSCO On February 11, 2009 (the deadline applied to HYSCO), POSCO submitted its sections A through D response to the initial questionnaire. On August 7, 2009, POSCO submitted its response the Department’s supplemental questionnaire for Section D. POSCO submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases on August 10, 2009. Period of Review The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2007, through July 31, 2008. 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 measures 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 measures 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, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 46111 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 (‘‘tin– free 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 flat– rolled products, which are three– layered corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat–rolled 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. 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 E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM 08SEN1 46112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices and the applicable delivery terms to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated EP for a number of Union’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 made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight to the port, foreign brokerage, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. customs duty. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP where the record established that sales made by HYSCO, POSCO, and Union were made in the United States after importation. HYSCO’s, POSCO’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 determined that these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP transactions under section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight to the port, foreign brokerage, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs duty, credit expenses, VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:32 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 warranty expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the United States associated with economic activity in the United States. See sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) 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. 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, 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). 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. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The appropriate methodology for determining the CEP for sales whose value has been substantially increased through U.S. 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 subject merchandise to an unaffiliated person for comparison purposes. See ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’ dated August 31, 2009, the public version of which is on file in the Central Record Unit, Room 1117, of the main Department building. Further, another reasonable method for determining CEP for the HAC CEP sales is not evident. Therefore, 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, which is consistent with the two previous administrative reviews of CORE from Korea.7 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)(1) 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. We increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. Where appropriate, we deducted inland freight from the plant to distribution warehouse, warehouse expense, inland freight from the plant/ warehouse to customer, and packing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B). Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for credit and warranty expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Where appropriate, we added interest revenue and applied billing adjustments to the gross unit price. For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines 7 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Fourteenth Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 74 FR 11082 (March 16, 2009) (CORE 14 Final Results); see also 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, 51586 (September 10, 2007) (unchanged in CORE 13 Final Results). E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM 08SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices ‘‘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 NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in the actual physical differences between the products sold in the United States and the home market. See 19 CFR 351.411 and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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 EP or 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 EP or CEP sales and NV sales were at different LOTs, we examined 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–toLength 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, there was only one home market LOT for each respondent and 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 HYSCO, POSCO, and Union because the NV sales for each company are at a more VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:32 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 advanced LOT than the LOT for the 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 August 31, 2009, ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’ ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),’’ 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 Analysis In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which HYSCO, POSCO, and Union participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that failed the cost test for each of these companies. Therefore, for this review, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like products under consideration for the determination of NV may have been made at prices below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted a COP investigation of sales in the home market by HYSCO, POSCO and Union. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the Department calculated company–specific COPs for HYSCO, POSCO, and Union based on the sum of each respondent’s cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs. We relied on the COP data as submitted by HYSCO, POSCO, and Union, except for POSCO, where we excluded gains and losses related to disposition and valuation of trading securities from the calculation of financial expense ratio. See the August 31, 2009, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel Co. Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘POSCO’’).’’ In determining whether home market sales had been made at prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1) of the Act, we compared the model–specific, weighted–average COPs to home market sales prices of the foreign like product. For this comparison, the Department adjusted the reported home market sales prices (not including value added tax (VAT)) by applying billing adjustments, adding interest revenue, and deducting PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 46113 movement charges, discounts, and rebates, as appropriate. To determine whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, the Department examined whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time, in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. 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 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. Because the Department compared prices to average COPs in the POR, the Department has also determined that the below–cost prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In such cases, we disregarded the below–cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We tested and identified below–cost home market sales for HYSCO, POSCO, and Union. For each company 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 August 31, 2009, ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’ ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),’’ and ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’ Arm’s–Length Sales HYSCO and POSCO 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 reported home market prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers with applied billing adjustment, including interest revenue and net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, rebates, and packing. In accordance with the Department’s current practice, if the E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM 08SEN1 46114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 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’s–length 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 14, 2007)); 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we found that the sales to an affiliated party did not pass the arm’s–length test, then 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); see also August 31, 2009, ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,’’ ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),’’ and ‘‘Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’’ jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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. accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs 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 the case briefs and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. 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, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department with an additional electronic copy of the public version of any such comments on a computer diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 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 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 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, unless extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h). Assessment Rate Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, the Preliminary Results of the Review Department shall determine, and CBP As a result of this review, we shall assess, antidumping duties on all preliminarily find that the following appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR weighted–average dumping margins 351.212(b)(1), the Department will exist: calculate importer–specific assessment rates for each respondent based on the Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin ratio of the total amount of antidumping HYSCO ......................... 0.43 (de minimis) duties calculated for the examined sales POSCO ......................... 0.16 (de minimis) to the total entered value of those sales. Union ............................ 3.94 Where the respondent did not report the Review–Specific Averentered value for U.S. sales, we have age Rate Applicable calculated importer–specific assessment to the Following Comrates for the merchandise in question by 8 LG Chem, panies: aggregating the dumping margins Haewon, and Dongbu 3.94 calculated for all U.S. sales to each 8 This rate is based on the margins calimporter and dividing this amount by culated for those companies that were se- the total quantity of those sales. To lected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on ad- determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance verse facts available. with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR Public Comment 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer– The Department will disclose specific ad valorem rates based on the calculations performed within five days estimated entered value. Where the of the date of publication of this notice assessment rate is above de minimis, we to the parties to this proceeding in will instruct CBP to assess duties on all VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:32 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 intends to 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 subject to this review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise which it sold to an intermediary (e.g. a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see id. 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 from 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 this review, 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 this 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. E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM 08SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 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: August 31, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–21594 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Angela Clark, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418–5178. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General This notice relates to fees for the Commission’s review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations 1 and designated contract markets (DCM), which are referred to as SROs, regulated by the Commission. II. Schedule of Fees Fees for the Commission’s review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission: Entity BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Establish the FY 2009 schedule of fees. SUMMARY: The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization (SRO) rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part 1 Appendix B) (National Futures Association (NFA), a registered futures association, and the contract markets are referred to as SROs). The calculation of the fee amounts to be charged for FY 2009 is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2006, 2007, and 2008, as explained below. The FY 2009 fee schedule is set forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Electronic payment of fees is required. DATES: Effective Dates: The FY 2009 fees for Commission oversight of each SRO rule enforcement program must be paid by each of the named SROs in the amount specified by no later than November 9, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Dean Yochum, Deputy Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418–5157, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:32 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 Fee amount Chicago Board of Trade ........... Chicago Mercantile Exchange .. New York Mercantile Exchange Kansas City Board of Trade ..... ICE Futures U.S. ...................... Minneapolis Grain Exchange ... HedgeStreet .............................. Chicago Climate Futures Exchange .................................. U.S. Futures Exchange ............ OneChicago .............................. National Futures Association .... $77,371 121,071 197,535 10,127 32,683 62,449 14,375 Total ................................... 727,270 12,259 18,601 1,157 179,641 III. Background Information A. General The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year with the intention of recovering the costs of operating this Commission program.2 All costs are accounted for by the Commission’s Management Accounting Structure Codes (MASC) system, which records each employee’s time for each pay period. The fees are set each year based on direct program costs, plus an overhead factor. B. Overhead Rate The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide 1 NFA is the only registered futures association. Section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of 1982, 7 U.S.C. 16a and 31 U.S.C. 9701. For a broader discussion of the history of Commission Fees, see 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987). 2 See PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 46115 overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs consist generally of the following Commissionwide costs: indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 109 percent for fiscal year 2006, 140 percent for fiscal year 2007, and 144 percent for fiscal year 2008. C. Conduct of SRO Rule Enforcement Reviews Under the formula adopted in 1993 (58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993), which appears at 17 CFR Part 1 Appendix B, the Commission calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of operation of the Commission’s SRO oversight program varies from SRO to SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO’s program. The three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out yearto-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission’s reviews and examinations may affect costs—a review or examination may span two fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO each year. Adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program costs. The Commission’s formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States industry-wide contract volume. The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years. The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM 08SEN1
[Pages 46110-46115]
[FR Doc No: E9-21594]
Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting the fifteenth administrative review of
the antidumping order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE) from the Republic of (Korea). This review covers seven
manufacturers and/or exporters (collectively, the respondents) of the
subject merchandise: LG Chem., Ltd. (LG Chem), Haewon MSC Co. Ltd.
(Haewon), Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO);
Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd.
(POCOS) (collectively, POSCO); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(Union). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2007, through July 31,
2008. We preliminarily determine that Union made sales of subject
merchandise at less than normal value (NV). We preliminarily determine
that HYSCO and POSCO have not made sales below NV.
In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents
selected for an individual review, we have preliminarily determined a
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
entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure (Union, POSCO, and all
others), and Christopher Hargett (HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973, (202) 482-4161, and
(202) 482-5075, respectively.
Certain Steel from Korea). On August 1, 2008, we published in the
Federal Register the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 73 FR 44966 (August 1, 2008). Between August 20, 2008, and
September 2, 2008, respondents and petitioners\1\ requested a review of
Dongbu, HYSCO, POSCO, Union, Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (Dongkuk),
Haewon and LG Chem. The Department initiated a review of each of the
companies for which a review was requested. See Initiation of
for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 56794 (September 30, 2008).
Steel), Nucor Corporation (Nucor), and Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc.
(Mittal Steel USA).
On December 8, 2008, the Department selected HYSCO 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 ``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Korea: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated December
8, 2008. 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.
On July 2, 2009, we published the notice of rescission of this
antidumping duty administrative review with respect to Dongkuk because
it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR.\2\
\2\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, In Part, 74 FR 28664 (June 17, 2009).
On July 8, 2009, we reconsidered our resources and found it
practicable to review POSCO as a voluntary respondent. Specifically, in
other antidumping duty cases being conducted by the office, several
review requests were withdrawn and/or respondents have ceased
participating in the review. Moreover, POSCO submitted a timely
response to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we selected
POSCO as a voluntary respondent in the instant review.\3\
\3\ See memo from James Terpstra to Melissa Skinner entitled
``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Korea: Selection of POSCO as a Voluntary Respondent,'' dated July 8,
At the time we issued the questionnaire, during the most recently
completed segments of the proceeding in which HYSCO and Union
participated,\4\ the Department
[[Page 46111]]
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 HYSCO and Union to
respond to sections A-E of the initial questionnaire,\5\ which we
issued on December 8, 2008. In its voluntary response, POSCO responded
to sections A-E of the questionnaire.
\4\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of the
Thirteenth Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 14220
(March 17, 2008) (CORE 13 Final Results); see also Certain
Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Twelfth Administrative Review
and Partial Rescission, 72 FR 13086 (March 20, 2007) (CORE 12 Final
\5\ Section 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; Section E: Further Manufacturing.
On April 27, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fifteenth
administrative review to August 31, 2009.\6\
\6\ 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, 74 FR 19049
On February 11, 2009, HYSCO submitted its sections A-D response to
the Department's initial questionnaire. HYSCO submitted its response to
the Department's supplemental questionnaires for sections A-C on May
21, 2009, and July 23, 2009, and submitted its response to the
Department's supplemental questionnaire for section D on August 27,
2009. HYSCO submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S.
sales databases on August 10, 2009. The Department has used the COP
database submitted on May 21, 2009, for these preliminary results, and
will take into consideration the COP database submitted on August 27,
2009, for the final results.
On January 14, 2009, Union submitted its section A response to the
initial questionnaire. On February 5, 2009, Union submitted its
response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire. On
April 9, 2009, and June 24, 2009, Union submitted its responses to the
Department's supplemental questionnaires for sections A-C. Union
submitted a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases
on August 10, 2009. On August 27, 2009, Union submitted its response to
the Department's supplemental questionnaire for section D. The
Department has used the COP database submitted on February 4, 2009, for
these preliminary results, and will take into consideration the COP
database submitted on August 27, 2009, for the final results.
On February 11, 2009 (the deadline applied to HYSCO), POSCO
submitted its sections A through D response to the initial
questionnaire. On August 7, 2009, POSCO submitted its response the
Department's supplemental questionnaire for Section D. POSCO submitted
a reconciliation of its home market and U.S. sales databases on August
The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2007, through July 31,
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, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,
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 cross-section 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,
physical characteristics reported by each respondent.
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and
[[Page 46112]]
compared these to individual U.S. transactions.
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. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices
and the applicable delivery terms to the first unaffiliated customer
in, or for exportation to, the United States.
a number of Union'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 made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included, where appropriate,
foreign inland freight to the port, foreign brokerage, international
freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from the port to
warehouse, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S. inland freight from the
warehouse to the unaffiliated customer, U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses, and U.S. customs duty.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP
where the record established that sales made by HYSCO, POSCO, and Union
were made in the United States after importation. HYSCO's, POSCO'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
transactions under section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we
made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight to
the port, foreign brokerage, international freight, marine insurance,
U.S. inland freight from the port to warehouse, U.S. warehouse
expenses, U.S. inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated
customer, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs duty,
credit expenses, warranty expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred
in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the United
States associated with economic activity in the United States. See
sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) 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.
In its section A questionnaire response, 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). 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
The appropriate methodology for determining the CEP for sales whose
value has been substantially increased through U.S. further
manufacturing generally must be made on a case-by-case basis. In this
instance, we find that there is a reasonable quantity of sales of
subject merchandise to an unaffiliated person for comparison purposes.
See ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,'' dated August 31,
2009, the public version of which is on file in the Central Record
Unit, Room 1117, of the main Department building. Further, another
reasonable method for determining CEP for the HAC CEP sales is not
evident. Therefore, 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, which is consistent
with the two previous administrative reviews of CORE from Korea.\7\
\7\ See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
Fourteenth Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 74 FR 11082
(March 16, 2009) (CORE 14 Final Results); see also Certain
Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 51584, 51586
(September 10, 2007) (unchanged in CORE 13 Final Results).
States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) 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. We increased NV by U.S. packing costs in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.
Where appropriate, we deducted inland freight from the plant to
distribution warehouse, warehouse expense, inland freight from the
plant/warehouse to customer, and packing, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B). Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where
appropriate, for credit and warranty expenses, in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Where appropriate, we added
interest revenue and applied billing adjustments to the gross unit
For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines
[[Page 46113]]
``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 NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in
the actual physical differences between the products sold in the United
States and the home market. See 19 CFR 351.411 and section
(LOT) as the EP or 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 EP or CEP sales
and NV sales were at different LOTs, we examined 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
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
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).
there was only one home market LOT for each respondent and we were
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 HYSCO,
POSCO, and Union because the NV sales for each company are at a more
advanced LOT than the LOT for the U.S. CEP sales.
August 31, 2009, ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,''
``Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO) and
Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively, POSCO),'' 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.
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which
HYSCO, POSCO, and Union participated, the Department found and
disregarded sales that failed the cost test for each of these
companies. Therefore, for this review, the Department has reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like products
under consideration for the determination of NV may have been made at
prices below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted
a COP investigation of sales in the home market by HYSCO, POSCO and
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the Department
calculated company-specific COPs for HYSCO, POSCO, and Union based on
the sum of each respondent's cost of materials and fabrication employed
in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs. We
relied on the COP data as submitted by HYSCO, POSCO, and Union, except
for POSCO, where we excluded gains and losses related to disposition
and valuation of trading securities from the calculation of financial
expense ratio. See the August 31, 2009, ``Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results -
Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel Co. Ltd.
(collectively, ``POSCO'').''
In determining whether home market sales had been made at prices
below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1) of the Act, we
compared the model-specific, weighted-average COPs to home market sales
prices of the foreign like product. For this comparison, the Department
adjusted the reported home market sales prices (not including value
added tax (VAT)) by applying billing adjustments, adding interest
revenue, and deducting movement charges, discounts, and rebates, as
To determine whether to disregard home market sales made at prices
below the COP, the Department examined whether such sales were made (1)
within an extended period of time, in substantial quantities, and (2)
at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
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 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. Because the Department compared prices to average COPs
in the POR, the Department has also determined that the below-cost
of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In such
We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for HYSCO,
POSCO, and Union. For each company we disregarded individual below-cost
the August 31, 2009, ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,''
``Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.''
HYSCO and POSCO 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).
the reported home market prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers with applied billing adjustment, including interest revenue
and net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts,
rebates, and packing. In accordance with the Department's current
practice, if the
[[Page 46114]]
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 14, 2007)); 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we
found that the sales to an affiliated party did not pass the arm's-
length test, then 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); see also August 31, 2009, ``Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai
HYSCO,'' ``Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.
(POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) (collectively,
POSCO),'' and ``Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.''
Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
HYSCO...............................................   0.43 (de minimis)
POSCO...............................................   0.16 (de minimis)
Union...............................................                3.94
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the                      3.94
Following Companies:\8\ LG Chem, Haewon, and Dongbu
\8\ This rate is based on the margins calculated for those companies
that were selected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins
or margins based entirely on adverse facts available.
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this
of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in the case briefs and may
be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the
case briefs. 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, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further,
parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide
the Department with an additional electronic copy of the public version
of any such comments on a computer diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f).
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 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1).
in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review,
the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for
each respondent based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
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 importer-specific ad
valorem rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the
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 intends to
issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication
of the final results of this review.
POR produced by the respondents subject to this review for which the
reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise which it sold to
an intermediary (e.g. a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see id.
CORE from 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
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3)
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise;
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
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
[[Page 46115]]
[FR Doc. E9-21594 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]