Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 20, 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 Canada. The review covers two producers of the subject merchandise, Ivaco Inc. and Ivaco Rolling Mills (IRM) (collectively, “Ivaco”) and Ispat Sidbec, Inc. (Ispat) (now known as Mittal Canada Inc. (Mittal)1). 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.
January 24, 2006.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Salim Bhabhrawala or David Neubacher, at (202) 482-1784 or (202) 482-5823, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 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 20, 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 Canada. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Steel Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 70 FR 41681 (July 20, 2005) (Preliminary Results).
We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On August 29, 2005, we received case briefs from the respondents, Ivaco and Ispat, and the petitioners, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., ISG Georgetown Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. All parties submitted rebuttal briefs on September 9, 2005. No public hearing was requested.
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. 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 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 0.15 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.
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 grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and 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 Start Printed Page 3823equal 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 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, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 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, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 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.
Analysis of Comments Received
The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, 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 http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made adjustments to the preliminary results calculation methodologies in calculating the final dumping margins. Brief descriptions of the company-specific changes are provided below and the changes are discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum.
We have corrected ministerial errors identified by parties in Ivaco's preliminary margin calculations as follows: (1) we included indirect selling expenses in the calculation of CEP profit; (2) we used Ivaco's reported credit expenses for its U.S. currency denominated sales in the home market and assigned it correctly throughout the calculation program; (3) we readjusted Ivaco's date of sale on certain U.S. sales; and (4) we ensured that the freight expenses from the border to the further processors were counted as a further manufacturing expense for only those sales which underwent further manufacturing in the United States.
We have corrected ministerial errors identified by parties in Ispat's preliminary margin calculations as follows: (1) we included the correct database and allowed for an offset in the calculation of CEP profit within the margin program; and (2) we have corrected the calculation of the CEP offset in the margin program.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period of October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004:
|Producer||Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage)|
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (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. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the date of publication of these final results of review.
Furthermore, 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 Canada 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 companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (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 period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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, a prior review, or in the final determination; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 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) 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 Start Printed Page 3824antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (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: January 17, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
I. General Issues
Comment 1: Freight to Unaffiliated Processors as Further Manufacturing
II. Company Specific Issues
Issues Specific to Ivaco
Comment 2: Use of Level of Trade Adjustment for IRM's and Sivaco's U.S. Sales
Comment 3: Level of Trade Methodology Used for IRM's and Sivaco's U.S. Sales
Comment 4: Ministerial Error Allegations Specific to Ivaco
Issues Specific to Ispat
Comment 5: Cost Averaging Periods
Comment 6: CEP Profit
Comment 7: Negative Net-Prices for U.S. Sales
Comment 8: Treatment of Certain Sales as CEP Sales
Comment 9: Offsetting for Export Sales that Exceed Normal Value
Comment 10: Ministerial Error Allegations Specific to IspatEnd Supplemental Information
[FR Doc. E6-823 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S