Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 12, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of its second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. The review covers one producer of the subject merchandise. The period of review (“POR”) is October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the Final Results of Review section.
November 16, 2005.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure or James Terpstra, at (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-3965, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On July 12, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Steel Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 39990 (July 12, 2005) (“Preliminary Results”).
We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On July 26, 2005, we extended the deadline for filing case briefs and rebuttal briefs to August 26, 2005, and August 31, 2005, respectively. On August 26, 2005, we received case briefs from the sole respondent, Carribean Ispat Limited (now known as Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited) and its affiliates Ispat North America Inc. (now known as Mittal Steel North America) and Walker Wire (Ispat) Inc. (collectively “CIL”), and the petitioners: ISG Georgetown Inc. (formerly Georgetown Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. CIL and the petitioners submitted rebuttal briefs on August 31, 2005.
On September 1, 2005, CIL submitted a letter to the Department requesting that the Department remove the petitioners' rebuttal brief because it contained a new argument. On September 6, 2005, we returned the petitioners rebuttal brief filed with the new argument. On September 9, 2005, the petitioners submitted a letter objecting to the Department's rejection of its rebuttal brief and also argued that CIL submitted new information and new arguments in its rebuttal brief. On September 13, 2005, the petitioners resubmitted its brief as requested by the Department. On September 14, 2005, the Department sent a letter to the petitioners explaining that CIL's rebuttal brief only contained new information with regards to the referenced website and that the Department would disregard any information referenced from the website.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 Start Printed Page 69513microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis—that is, the direction of rolling—of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should the petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.
The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.1
Analysis of Comments Received
The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have corrected the normal value calculation by using the home market price adjustment variable, instead of the U.S. price adjustment variable. In addition, we excluded certain wire rod sold in the home market from our calculation because it did not meet our model match criteria. These adjustments are discussed in further detail in the Decision Memorandum.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period of October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004:
|Producer||Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage)|
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”): (1) for CIL, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in Start Printed Page 69514the investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the final determination; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the final determination; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also 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 increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.
This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.Start Signature
Dated: November 8, 2005.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Comment 1: Ministerial Error Related to Normal Value (“NV”) Adjustment
Comment 2: Methodology for Calculating Imputed Expenses for CEP (“CEP”) Sales
Comment 3: CEP Offset Adjustment and Level of Trade (“LOT”) Analysis
Comment 4: Treatment of Certain Merchandise as Non-primeEnd Supplemental Information
1. Effective January 1, 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) reclassified certain HTSUS numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/toc.html.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. E5-6331 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S