[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22525-22530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11309]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-489-807)


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner and two producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain steel concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey. This review covers 
four manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. This is the third period of review, covering April 1, 1999, 
through March 31, 2000.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by the companies subject to this review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we 
will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone:(202) 482-0656.

Applicable Statue and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
Part 351 (2000).

Background

    On April 12, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on certain 
steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey (65 FR 19736).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), in April 2000, the 
Department received requests from Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve 
Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Diler Dis 
Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler'') and ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve 
Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS) to conduct an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1), on May 1, 2000, the Department also received a request 
for an administrative review

[[Page 22526]]

from the petitioner, AmeriSteel, for the following three producers/
exporters of rebar: Colakaglu Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu), Ekinciler 
Holding, A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S. (collectively 
``Ekinciler''), and ICDAS.
    In May 2000, Diler requested that the Department modify its 
reporting requirement with respect to home market sales, in light of 
the fact that Diler only made U.S. sales in certain months of the 
period of review (POR). In June 2000, we granted this request and 
shortened Diler's reporting period to May 1 through October 31, 1999. 
For further discussion, see the memorandum to Louis Apple from Gerald 
Surowiec, entitled ``1999-2000 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Concrete Steel Reinforcing Bar from Turkey--Request by Diler for a 
Shortened Reporting Period,'' dated June 14, 2000 (Diler Reporting 
Period Memo).
    In June and July 2000, the Department initiated an administrative 
review for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and ICDAS (65 FR 35320 (June 2, 
2000) and 65 FR 41942 (July 7, 2000)) and issued questionnaires to 
them.
    Also in June and July 2000, Ekinciler and ICDAS requested that the 
Department similarly modify their reporting requirements with respect 
to their home market sales data.\1\ In July 2000, we also granted these 
requests and shortened Ekinciler's and ICDAS's reporting periods to 
October 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000, and April 1 through September 
30, 1999, respectively. For further discussion, see the memorandum to 
Louis Apple from Gerald Surowiec, entitled ``1999-2000 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Concrete Steel Reinforcing Bar from Turkey--
Request by Ekinciler for a Shortened Reporting Period,'' dated July 7, 
2000 (Ekinciler Reporting Period Memo), as well as the memorandum to 
Louis Apple from Gerald Surowiec, entitled ``Request by ICDAS for a 
Shortened Reporting Period in the 1999-2000 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' 
dated July 21, 2000 (ICDAS Reporting Period Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ekinciler's request was also regarding its cost data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July and August 2000, we received responses to sections A 
through C of the questionnaire (i.e., the sections regarding sales to 
the home market and the United States) from each of the respondents. 
Also in August 2000, we received responses to Section D of the 
questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding cost of production (COP) and 
constructed value (CV)) from Colakoglu and Ekinciler.
    In August 2000, the petitioner alleged that both Diler and ICDAS 
were selling at prices below their COPs in the home market. Based on an 
analysis of these allegations, in August and September 2000, 
respectively, the Department initiated investigations to determine 
whether ICDAS and Diler made home market sales at prices below their 
COPs within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Consequently, we 
requested that these companies submit responses to section D of the 
questionnaire. We received responses to these questionnaires in 
September and October 2000.
    In September and October 2000, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to the respondents. We received responses to these 
questionnaires in September, October, and December 2000.
    On October 3, 2000, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than April 30, 2001. See Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time 
Limits for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 60169 (Oct. 
10, 2000).
    We verified the sales and cost information submitted by all four 
respondents in November 2000, as well as in January and February 2001, 
in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.307(b)(1)(iv). In March 2001, we requested and received revised 
databases from Diler, Ekinciler, and ICDAS, incorporating our findings 
at verification.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is all stock deformed steel 
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This 
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail 
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round 
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, 
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000.

Level of Trade and Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value (NV) based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade as export price (EP) or 
CEP. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the 
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and 
profit. For EP, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the 
starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the 
unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed 
sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory 
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the 
CEP offset provision). 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 (Nov. 19, 1997).
    Colakoglu claimed that it made home market sales at more than one 
level of trade, while the remaining respondents claimed that they made 
home market sales at only one level of trade. We analyzed the 
information on the record for each company and found that each 
respondent, including Colakoglu, performed essentially the same 
marketing functions in selling to all of its home market customers, 
regardless of customer category (e.g., end user, distributor, etc.). 
Therefore, we determined that these sales are at the same level of 
trade and that no level of trade adjustment is possible for any of the 
respondents because the record does not contain the type of information 
to make such an adjustment, given that there is only one level of trade 
in the home market. For a detailed explanation

[[Page 22527]]

of this analysis, see the memorandum from the Team to Louis Apple, 
entitled ``Concurrence Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 
1999-2000 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated April 30, 2001.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the 
United States at less than normal value, we compared the EP to the NV. 
Because Turkey's economy experienced significant inflation during the 
POR, as is Department practice, we limited our comparisons to home 
market sales made during the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred 
and did not apply our ``90/60'' contemporaneity rule (see, e.g., 
Certain Porcelain on Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496, 42503 (Aug. 7, 
1997)). This methodology minimizes the extent to which calculated 
dumping margins are overstated or understated due solely to price 
inflation that occurred in the intervening time period between the U.S. 
and home market sales.
    We first attempted to compare products sold in the United States to 
products sold in the home market in the ordinary course of trade that 
were identical with respect to the following characteristics: grade, 
size, ASTM specification, and form. Where there were no home market 
sales of merchandise that were identical in these respects to the 
merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with 
the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the 
characteristics listed above, in that order of priority.
    Regarding Colakoglu, we were unable to make product comparisons for 
certain models which were produced and sold during 1999 because this 
respondent failed to report cost information for them, including both 
difference-in-merchandise and CV data. Consequently, for purposes of 
the preliminary results, we based the margin for the sales of these 
products on facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the 
Act. As facts available, we used the highest non-aberrant margin 
calculated for any U.S. transaction for Colakoglu, in accordance with 
our practice. See, e.g., Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors 
From Taiwan; Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 26577, 26579 (May 8, 2000) (unchanged by 
the final results); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany, 64 FR 
30710, 30732 (June 8, 1999). In selecting a facts-available margin, we 
sought a margin that is sufficiently adverse so as to effectuate the 
statutory purposes of the adverse facts-available rule, which is to 
induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner. We also sought a margin that is 
indicative of the respondent's customary selling practices and is 
rationally related to the transactions to which the adverse facts 
available are being applied. To that end, we selected the highest 
margin on an individual sale which fell within the mainstream of 
Colakoglu's transactions (i.e., transactions that reflect sales of 
products that are representative of the broader range of models used to 
determine NV).

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales we used EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of 
record.

A. Colakoglu

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for ocean freight expenses, 
marine insurance expenses, inspection fees, bill of lading issuance 
fees, loading charges, and demurrage expenses (offset by freight 
commission revenue, wharfage revenue, despatch revenue, demurrage 
commission revenue, and agency fee revenue), where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

B. Diler

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, brokerage and handling expenses, port and loading fees, and 
ocean freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

C. Ekinciler

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, surveying fees, forklift expenses, dunnage expenses, loading 
fees, brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, and 
customs clearance fees, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

D. ICDAS

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, surveying fees, brokerage and handling expenses, and ocean 
freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales.
    All four respondents made sales of rebar to affiliated parties in 
the home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales to 
ensure that they were made at ``arm's-length'' prices, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To conduct this test, we compared the unit 
prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where prices to 
the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price 
to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that these sales were made 
at arm's length (see Preamble, Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule 62 FR 27295, 27355 (May 19, 1997)). In accordance 
with the Department's practice, we only included in our margin analysis 
those sales to the affiliated party that were made at arm's length.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Colakoglu and 
Ekinciler, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
these respondents had made home market sales at prices below their COPs 
in this review because the Department had disregarded sales below the 
COP for these companies in the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding in which these companies participated (i.e., the less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation and the first review, respectively). 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

[[Page 22528]]

Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR 
9737, 9740 (Mar. 4, 1997). See also Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 49150, 49152 (Sept. 10, 1999). 
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, for Diler and ICDAS, 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that these 
respondents had made home market sales at prices below their COPs in 
this review because of information contained in the cost allegations 
properly filed in this review by the petitioner (see the memorandum 
from The Team to Louis Apple, entitled, ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: 
Analysis of the Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production for Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici 
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.,'' dated 
September 1, 2000, as well as the memorandum from the Team to Louis 
Apple, entitled ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing bars from Turkey: Analysis of the Petitioners' 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for ICDAS Celik Enerji 
Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S.,'' dated August 29, 2000). As a result, 
the Department initiated investigations to determine whether each 
respondent made home market sales during the POR at prices below their 
respective COPs.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act. We relied on the latest databases submitted by each respondent, 
adjusted for our findings at verification. Regarding ICDAS, we adjusted 
the reported secondary materials costs, which were based on historical 
costs, to reflect the weighted-average current purchase price at the 
time of consumption. We also disallowed ICDAS's material offset for 
sales of short-length rebar.
    As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced 
significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the 
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, 
we requested that each respondent submit the product-specific cost of 
manufacturing (COM) incurred during each month of the reporting period. 
We calculated a period-average COM for each product after indexing the 
reported monthly costs during the reporting period to an equivalent 
currency level using the Turkish Wholesale Price Index from the 
International Financial Statistics published by the International 
Monetary Fund. We then restated the period-average COMs in the currency 
values of each respective month. For further discussion of the 
reporting periods for Diler, Ekinciler, and ICDAS, see the 
``Background'' section of this notice, above.
    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices 
of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the 
Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices 
below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges and selling 
expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) for 
Colakoglu only, at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See 
sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act. Regarding Diler, 
Ekinciler, and ICDAS, we did not conduct a recovery of cost test 
because these companies did not report all costs over the POR.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note that each of these companies waived its right to a 
cost recovery test as a condition of obtaining a modified home 
market sales and cost reporting period. For further discussion, see 
the Diler Reporting Period Memo, Ekinciler Reporting Period Memo, 
and the ICDAS Reporting Period Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that 
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such 
cases, for Colakoglu, we also determined that such sales were not made 
at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded 
these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where 
all sales of a specific product were at prices below the COP, we 
disregarded all sales of that product.

A. Colakoglu

    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on ex-factory or delivered prices to home 
market customers. For those home market sales which were negotiated in 
U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the Turkish 
lira (TL) price adjusted for kur farki (i.e., an adjustment to the TL 
invoice price to account for the difference between the estimated and 
actual TL value on the date of payment), because the only price agreed 
upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price remained unchanged; the 
buyer merely paid the TL-equivalent amount at the time of payment. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, bank charges, and Exporters' Association fees.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using POR-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of the 
POR, as described above.

B. Diler

    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on ex-factory or delivered prices to home 
market customers. For those home market sales which were negotiated in 
U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the TL price 
adjusted for kur farki, for the reasons noted above. Where appropriate, 
we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, as well as Exporters' Association fees.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in

[[Page 22529]]

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using period-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of 
the reporting period, as described above.

C. Ekinciler

    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on ex-factory, ex-warehouse or delivered 
prices to home market customers, adjusted for billing errors. We 
excluded from our analysis home market re-sales by Ekinciler of 
merchandise produced by unaffiliated companies. Where appropriate, we 
made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight and 
off-site warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) 
of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, bank charges, and Exporters' Association fees. We made no 
adjustment for home market commissions because Ekinciler did not report 
any U.S. indirect selling expenses for use as an offset. For further 
discussion, see the memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the File, 
entitled ``Calculations Performed for the Ekinciler Group (Ekinciler) 
for the Preliminary Results in the 1999-2000 Antidumping Administrative 
Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated 
April 30, 2001.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using period-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of 
the reporting period, as described above.

D. ICDAS

    We based NV on delivered prices to home market customers because we 
found that all home market sales were in the ordinary course of trade. 
We made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight 
expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses (offset by interest revenue, where appropriate), bank charges, 
and Exporters' Association fees.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 49150, 49158 (Sept. 10, 1999).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
respondents during the period April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S....................................        10.47
Ekinciler Holding A.S./Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S...........        15.05
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./Yazici Demir           0.00
 Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Diler Dis Ticaret A.S........
ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S............         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.
    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Diler, 
we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding 
Colakoglu, Ekinciler, and ICDAS, for assessment purposes, we do not 
have the information to calculate entered value because these companies 
are not the importers of record for the subject merchandise. 
Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific duty 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. The assessment rate will be 
assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made 
during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the 
Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any 
of Diler's entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., 
less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 16.06 percent, the all others rate established in the LTFV 
investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR

[[Page 22530]]

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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective January 20, 
2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: April 30, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-11309 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P