[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56274-56276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

[A-489-807]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On May 4, 2001, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey (66 FR 
22525). This review covers four manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review is April 1, 
1999, through March 31, 2000.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled 
``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Elizabeth Eastwood, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0656 or (202) 482-3874, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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 (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

Background

    This review covers four manufacturers/exporters (i.e., Colakoglu 
Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu), Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret 
A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and

[[Page 56275]]

Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler''), Ekinciler Holding A.S. 
and Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler''), and ICDAS 
Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS)).
    On May 4, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from 
Turkey. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 
22525 (May 4, 2001) (Preliminary Results).
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. 
The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order 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 period of review (POR) is April 1, 1999, through March 31, 
2000.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether the respondents participating in the 
review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the 
POR at prices below their costs of production (COPs) within the meaning 
of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We calculated the COP for these final 
results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results, 
except as discussed in the accompanying ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memo) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 31, 2001.
    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.
    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.
    We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given 
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the 
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these 
below cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time and, for Colakoglu only, at prices which did 
not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time 
in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) 
of the Act. Regarding Diler, Ekinciler, and ICDAS, as discussed in the 
preliminary results, we granted these respondents six-month limited 
reporting periods, and we advised them that if they elected to limit 
their reporting of home market data to a six-month period, in the 
sales-below-cost investigation they would forgo the application of the 
``recovery of cost'' test pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Diler, Ekinciler, and ICDAS agreed to accept this limitation. 
Consequently, without the application of the ``recovery of cost'' test, 
we 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 these final results, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales for all respondents and used the remaining sales as 
the basis for determining normal value, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act. While we disregarded some below-cost sales, sufficient 
sales remained that passed the cost test in the current review. 
Therefore, it was unnecessary to calculate constructed value in this 
case.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review are addressed in the Decision Memo, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have 
raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision 
Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a 
complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department 
building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy 
and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

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

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages 
exist for the period April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                     Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S.......................................      9.51
Ekinciler Holding A.S./Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S..............      6.83
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 shall determine, and Customs 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

[[Page 56276]]

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 entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) The cash deposit rates for 
the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above; 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 less-than-fair-value (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 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: October 31, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix.--Issues in Decision Memo

Comments

    1. Use of Facts Available.
    2. Exchange Rates used for Currency Conversions.
    3. Cost Recovery Test.
    4. Home Market Sales Priced in U.S. Dollars.
    5. Kur Farki Adjustment.
    6. Colakoglu's Home Market Credit Expenses.
    7. Colakoglu's Home Market Indirect Selling Expenses.
    8. Different Costs for the Same Products Produced by Colakoglu.
    9. Unreported Costs for Colakoglu.
    10. Colakoglu's Production Quantities.
    11. Colakoglu's Depreciation Expenses.
    12. Colakoglu's G&A Expenses.
    13. Colakoglu's Financing Expenses.
    14. Costs for Different Grades of Rebar Produced by Diler.
    15. Unreported Material Costs for Diler.
    16. Diler's Depreciation Expenses.
    17. Diler's G&A Expenses.
    18. Diler's Financing Expenses.
    19. Selling Expenses for Constructed Export Price.
    20. Ekinciler's Home Market Freight Expenses.
    21. Ekinciler's U.S. Freight Expenses.
    22. Ekinciler's Home Market Credit Expenses.
    23. Ekinciler's Scrap Costs.
    24. Ekinciler's Depreciation Expenses.
    25. Ekinciler's G&A Expenses.
    26. Use of Consolidated Financing Expenses for Ekinciler.
    27. Calculation of Ekinciler's Financing Expenses.
    28. New Factual Information.
    29. ICDAS's Scrap and Labor Costs.
    30. ICDAS's Secondary Materials.
    31. ICDAS's Packing Costs.
    32. Treatment of ICDAS's Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses and 
Interest.
[FR Doc. 01-27975 Filed 11-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P