[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25063-25068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10232]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner and one producer/
exporter of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from 
Turkey. This review covers three manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. This is the fifth period of review 
(POR), covering April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by only one of the respondents in this proceeding, 
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu). In addition, we have 
preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to the 
following companies because these companies had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR: Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. 
(Cebitas), Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas), 
Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan), Ege Celik 
Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik), Ekinciler Holding A.S. 
and Ekinciler Demir Celik San A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler''), Habas 
Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas), Iskenderun Iron 
& Steel Works Co. (Iskenderun), Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir), 
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan), Kardemir--
Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk), Kroman Celik 
Sanayi A.S. (Kroman), Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A.S. 
(Metas), Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet), Nursan Celik 
Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan), Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri A.S. 
(Sivas), Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali), and Ucel Haddecilik 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel). If these preliminary results are adopted 
in the final results of this review, we will instruct Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.
    Finally, we have preliminarily determined not to revoke the 
antidumping duty order with respect to ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve 
Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS).
    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 5, 2004.

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.

Background

    On April 1, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey (68 FR 15704).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on April 30, 2003, the 
Department received a request from ICDAS to conduct an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. As part of 
this request, ICDAS also requested that the Department revoke the 
dumping order with regard to it, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b). 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on April 30, 2002, the 
Department also received a request for an administrative review from 
the petitioners, Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals 
Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation, for the following 22 
producers/exporters of rebar: Cebitas, Cemtas, Colakoglu, Demirsan, 
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi 
ve Ticaret A.S. and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler''), 
Ege Celik, Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal), 
Ekinciler, Habas, ICDAS, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, 
Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum), Metas, Nurmet, 
Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel.
    In May 2003, the Department initiated an administrative review for 
each of

[[Page 25064]]

these companies and issued questionnaires to them. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 27781 (May 21, 2003).
    In May and June 2003, the following companies informed the 
Department that they had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise 
during the POR: Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ekinciler, Habas, 
Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, 
Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. We reviewed CBP data and confirmed that there 
were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these companies 
except Habas. We also confirmed with CBP data that Ege Metal and Kurum 
did not have shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and 
consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our 
review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal, Ekinciler, 
Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas, Nurmet, 
Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel.
    Regarding Habas, CBP information indicates that there were entries 
of subject merchandise produced by Habas during the POR. Based on this 
information, we asked Habas to explain the circumstances surrounding 
these entries. Habas responded that this merchandise had been sold to 
an unaffiliated customer in a third country who then exported this 
merchandise to the United States, and it provided documentation to 
support its claim that it did not have knowledge that this merchandise 
was destined for the United States. We therefore find that Habas did 
not have any reviewable entries during this POR. Accordingly, we are 
rescinding our review for Habas. For further discussion, see the 
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
    In June 2003 Colakoglu, Diler and ICDAS requested that the 
Department modify its reporting requirements with respect to their home 
market sales, in light of the fact that these respondents only made 
U.S. sales in certain months of the POR. We granted Colakoglu's and 
Diler's requests on June 10, 2003, and ICDAS' request on June 30, 2003.
    In July 2003 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) and Section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the 
section regarding cost of production (COP) and constructed value (CV)) 
from Colakoglu, Diler, and ICDAS.
    In July, August, and September 2003, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to each of the participating respondents. We received 
responses to these questionnaires in August, September, and October 
2003.
    On October 8, 2003, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than April 29, 2004. See Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Notice of Extension of 
Time Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 68 FR 59368 (Oct. 15, 2003).
    In January 2004, we issued an additional cost supplemental 
questionnaire to ICDAS. We received a response to this questionnaire in 
February 2004. We verified the sales and cost information submitted by 
ICDAS in January and February 2004. Also, in February and March 2004, 
we requested and received revised databases from ICDAS incorporating 
our findings at verification.
    In March 2004, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire 
to Diler. We received a response to this questionnaire in March 2004.

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, 2002, through March 31, 2003.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ekinciler, 
Habas, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Metas, Nurmet, 
Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel informed the Department that they had 
no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR. We have confirmed this with CBP. Therefore, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are 
preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to these companies. 
See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 
Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 
and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sept. 9, 
2003) (2001-2002 Rebar Review). We have also confirmed with CBP that 
neither Ege Metal nor Kurum had shipments of subject merchandise during 
the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and 
consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily 
rescinding our review with respect to Ege Metal and Kurum.
    Regarding Habas, as noted above, we found that certain shipments of 
subject merchandise produced by this company entered the United States 
during the POR. On October 15, 2003, we requested that Habas explain 
these shipments, in light of its claim that it had none during the POR. 
On November 3, 2003, Habas informed the Department that it did not have 
knowledge that these shipments were destined for the United States 
because they were made by an unaffiliated customer. Habas also provided 
documentation to support its claim. Consequently, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are 
preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Habas.

Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part

    On April 30, 2003, ICDAS submitted a letter to the Department 
requesting revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its 
sales of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b).
    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). While Congress has not specified the 
procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the 
Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described 
in 19 CFR 351.222. 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) notes that the Secretary may 
revoke an antidumping duty order in part if the Secretary concludes, 
inter alia, that one or more exporters or producers covered by the 
order have sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not 
less than normal value (NV) for a period of at least three consecutive 
years. See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping 
Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 
(Jan. 6, 2000).

[[Page 25065]]

    ICDAS's request was accompanied by a certification that it has sold 
the subject merchandise at not less that NV during the current POR and 
will not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future. ICDAS 
further certified that it sold the subject merchandise to the United 
States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three 
consecutive years.\1\ The company also agreed to immediate 
reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, 
subsequent to the revocation, ICDAS sold the subject merchandise at 
less than NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ICDAS requested that the Department consider four review 
periods in its revocation analysis: 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 
and 2002-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this administrative review, we preliminarily find that ICDAS 
does not qualify for revocation under 19 CFR 351.222(d), which states:

    ``The Secretary will not revoke an order or terminate a 
suspended investigation under paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section 
unless the Secretary has conducted a review under this subpart of 
the first and third (or fifth) years of the three- and five-year 
consecutive time periods referred to in those paragraphs.''

    This provision also makes clear that the Department will not revoke 
an order unless the relevant exports to the United States during each 
of these time periods were made in commercial quantities.
    We preliminarily determine that ICDAS does not qualify for 
revocation in this review because it has not met the applicable 
requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(d). First, we note that the Department 
determined that ICDAS did not have sales in commercial quantities in 
the 1999-2000 review and, therefore, the Department cannot include this 
period in its revocation analysis for ICDAS. See 2001-2002 Rebar Review 
and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 5. Second, we also note 
that the 2000-2001 review cannot count as the first of the three years 
under consideration for ICDAS because the Department did not conduct a 
review of this time period for ICDAS.\2\ Therefore, because the 
requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(d) have not been met, we preliminarily 
find that ICDAS does not qualify for revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Department rescinded the 1999-2000 administrative review 
for ICDAS because it had no entries during that time period. See 
2001-2002 Rebar Review and accompanying decision memorandum at 
Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3)(a) of the Act, we verified the 
sales and cost information provided by ICDAS. We used standard 
verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the 
verification reports placed in the case file in the Central Records 
Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the 
United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (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.
    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in 
the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in 
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of 
trade (i.e., sales within the same month which passed the cost test), 
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the 
characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping 
questionnaire, or CV, as appropriate.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted 
to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. 
and home markets that were identical with respect to the following 
characteristics: form, grade, size, and ASTM specification. Where there 
were no home market sales of foreign like product 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.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Colakoglu, Diler, and ICDAS, we used EP 
methodology, 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 constructed 
export price 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 inspection fees, lashing and 
loading expenses, demurrage expenses, overage premium expenses, crane 
charges (offset by freight commission revenue, wharfage revenue, 
despatch revenue, demurrage commission revenue, agency fee revenue, 
attendance fee revenue, and other freight-related revenue), and ocean 
freight expenses, 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, and loading expenses 
(including charges for loading supervision), where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

C. ICDAS

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for surveying expenses, customs 
overtime fees, loading expenses, ocean freight expenses, U.S. customs 
duties, and U.S. brokerage charges, where appropriate, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    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.

[[Page 25066]]

Consequently, we based NV on home market sales.
    For each respondent, in accordance with our practice, we excluded 
home market sales of non-prime merchandise made during the POR from our 
preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in the 
home market and the fact that no such sales were made to the United 
States during the POR. (See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993); Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 21634, 21636 (May 1, 
2002) (unchanged by the final results); Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 56274 (Nov. 7, 2001) and accompanying 
decision memorandum at Comment 1 (1999-2000 Rebar Review).

B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's Length Test

    Diler and ICDAS 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 test whether the sales to affiliates were 
made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Where the price to that 
affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent 
of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the 
unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade (LOT), we determined 
that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison 
Market, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Colakoglu, 
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 the Department had disregarded sales that 
failed the cost test for these companies in the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding in which these companies participated (i.e., 
the 2001-2002 administrative review for Colakoglu and ICDAS, and the 
1999-2000 administrative review for Diler). As a result, the Department 
initiated an investigation to determine whether these companies had 
made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. See 
2000-2001 Rebar Review, 67 FR at 66111. See also, 1999-2000 Rebar 
Review, 66 FR at 56275.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses (G&A), and interest expenses. See the ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home 
market selling expenses.
    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 relied on the COP information Colakoglu and Diler provided in 
their questionnaire responses. In addition, we relied on the COP 
information provided by ICDAS, except for the following adjustments:
    1. We revised the reported COM for rebar by allocating direct 
labor, variable overhead, and fixed overhead costs incurred at the 
rolling mills based on actual time including stoppage.
    2. We revised the G&A expense rate calculation as follows:
    (a) We excluded the revenue items associated with ICDAS's separate 
line of business;
    (b) we excluded the revenues and expenses not related to the 2002 
fiscal year; and
    (c) we adjusted the gain on the sale of an asset to an affiliated 
party to reflect the market price.
    3. We revised the interest expense ratio calculation to include the 
following items: interest expenses, foreign exchange gains, and foreign 
exchange losses.
    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum 
from Sheikh M. Hannan to Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,'' dated 
April 29, 2004.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    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, selling expenses, 
and packing 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) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. See sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act.
3. Results of the COP Test
    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, 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 for ICDAS and Diler and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    Regarding Colakoglu, we preliminarily find that this respondent did 
not make any below-cost sales in substantial quantities during the POR. 
Therefore, we did not disregard any of Colakoglu's home market sales in 
determining NV.

[[Page 25067]]

D. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same LOT as EP. The NV LOT 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, SG&A, and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is 
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the 
exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP 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 LOT 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 LOT of the export transaction, we make 
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    All respondents claimed that they made home market sales at only 
one LOT. We analyzed the information on the record for each company and 
found that two of these respondents, Colakoglu and Diler, performed 
essentially the same marketing functions in selling to all of their 
home market and U.S. customers, regardless of customer category (e.g., 
end-user, distributor). Therefore, we determine that these sales are at 
the same LOT. We further determine that no LOT adjustment is warranted 
for these respondents.
    Regarding ICDAS, we found that this company performs additional 
selling functions on certain home market sales. Specifically, we found 
that ICDAS performs an additional layer of selling functions on its 
sales through affiliated distributors which are not performed on its 
sales to unaffiliated customers. Because these additional selling 
functions are significant, we find that ICDAS's sales through 
affiliated distributors are at a different LOT than its direct sales to 
unaffiliated parties. We further find that the LOT for U.S. sales is 
the same as the home market LOT for ICDAS's direct sales to 
unaffiliated parties because the selling functions performed by ICDAS 
are essentially the same in both markets. Consequently, we compared 
ICDAS's EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market (i.e., 
ICDAS's direct home market sales). For further discussion, see the 
memorandum entitled ``Concurrence Memorandum,'' dated April 29, 2004.

E. Calculation of Normal Value

1. Colakoglu
    We based NV on the starting 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. This treatment is consistent 
with our treatment of these transactions in the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
from Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Notice of Intent Not to Revoke in Part, 68 FR 23972, 23977 
(unchanged in the final results). 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 (offset by interest revenue), commissions, bank charges, other 
direct selling expenses, and exporter association fees. Although it is 
the Department's practice to offset commissions paid in only one market 
with the indirect selling expenses incurred in the other (see, e.g., 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyvinyl Alcohol From the 
Republic of Korea, 68 FR 13681, 13685 (Mar. 20, 2003)), we were unable 
to do so here because Colakoglu did not report sufficient data to 
permit such a calculation. However, we have requested that Colakoglu 
provide this information, and we intend to consider it for purposes of 
the final results.
    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.
2. Diler
    We based NV on the starting 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, 
because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this 
price remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above. 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 (offset by interest revenue), bank fees, and exporter 
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 period-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of 
the reporting period, as described above.
3. ICDAS
    We based NV on the starting 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, 
because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this 
price remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above.
    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 exporter 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

[[Page 25068]]

product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs as adjusted 
for inflation for each month of the POR, as described above.

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 exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/Retrieval 
Service.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
respondents during the period April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S....................................         9.33
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir          0.36
 Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S...
ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S...........         0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because ICDAS reported the 
entered value of all U.S. sales, 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 and Diler, we note that these companies did not 
report the entered value for any of their U.S. sales. Accordingly, 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 ratios based 
on the EPs. 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 will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.
    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, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be 
zero; (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 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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 29, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-10232 Filed 5-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P