[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 112 (Thursday, June 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32508-32510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-449-804]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Latvia

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

DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel O'Brien or Shane Subler, at 
(202) 482-5346 or (202) 482-0189, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement 
Office 1, Group 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete 
reinforcing bar (rebar) from Latvia. We preliminarily determine that 
sales of subject merchandise by Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs 
(Liepajas Metalurgs) have been made below normal value (NV). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties 
on appropriate entries based on the difference between the export price 
(EP) and the NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties that submit arguments are requested to submit with 
each argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument. Further, we ask that parties submitting comments provide 
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any 
such comments on diskette.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 7, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
order on rebar from Latvia. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's 
Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 FR 46777 
(September 7, 2001). On September 2, 2003, the Department issued a 
notice of opportunity to request the second administrative review of 
this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
68 FR 52181 (September 2, 2003). On September 17, 2003, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Liepajas Metalurgs requested an administrative 
review. On September 30, 2003, also in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b), the petitioners \1\ requested an administrative review of 
Liepajas Metalurgs. On October 24, 2003, the Department published the 
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, 
covering the period September 1, 2002, through August 31, 2003 (the 
POR). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 60910 (October 24, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this case are the Rebar Trade Action 
Coalition (``RTAC'') and its individual members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 7, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Liepajas Metalurgs, specifying that the responses to 
Section A and Sections B-D would be due on November 28, 2003, and 
December 14, 2003, respectively.\2\ We received timely responses to 
Sections A-C of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated 
supplemental questionnaires. We initiated a cost of production (COP) 
investigation of Liepajas Metalurgs on April 23, 2004. The company 
submitted timely responses to Section D of the antidumping 
questionnaire, as well as to supplemental questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which 
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests 
a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market 
is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market 
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy 
cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section 
D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like 
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. 
Section E requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the unexpected emergency closure of the main Commerce 
building on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, the Department has tolled the 
deadline for these preliminary results by one day to June 2, 2004.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this review, the product covered by this order is 
all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under item number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. 
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth 
bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or 
coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare 
contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and 
comparison market that are identical with respect to the matching 
characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondent that fit the definition of the scope of the 
order and were sold in the comparison market during the POR fall within 
the definition of the foreign like product. We have relied on three 
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison 
market sales of the foreign like product: type of steel, yield 
strength, and size. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise 
in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the next 
most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics 
listed above.

Export Price

    We calculated an EP for all of Liepajas Metalurgs' sales because 
the merchandise was sold directly by Liepajas Metalurgs to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser for delivery to the United States, and 
constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the 
facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
These included inland freight and domestic brokerage and handling 
expenses.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the

[[Page 32509]]

merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is 
inappropriate); that the time of the sales reasonably corresponds to 
the time of the sale used to determine EP; and that there is no 
particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the 
EP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally 
be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the 
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States.
    We found that Liepajas Metalurgs had a viable home market for 
rebar. As such, Liepajas Metalurgs submitted home market sales data for 
purposes of the calculation of NV.
    In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices section below.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the first administrative 
review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home 
market sales of the foreign like product by Liepajas Metalurgs have 
been made at prices below the COP during the period of the second 
review. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
initiated a COP investigation of sales made by Liepajas Metalurgs. See 
Memorandum From Daniel O'Brien, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 
to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, Re: Allegation of Sales Below the 
Cost of Production for Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs, dated 
April 23, 2004.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, 
fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We relied 
on Liepajas Metalurgs' submitted COP. See Memorandum from Daniel 
O'Brien and Jim Kemp, International Trade Compliance Analysts, to 
Constance Handley, Program Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum for Joint 
Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs, dated June 2, 2004 (the Analysis 
Memorandum).
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COPs for Liepajas Metalurgs to its 
home-market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a 
period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
    On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market 
prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and 
direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of 
Liepajas Metalurgs' sales of a given product during the POR were made 
at prices below the COP, because such sales were made within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons 
of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the 
below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Liepajas Metalurgs 
made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We determined NV for Liepajas Metalurgs as follows. We made 
adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market 
movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments for Liepajas 
Metalurgs's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred for home market sales (credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct 
selling expenses (credit expenses). We note that Liepajas Metalurgs 
reported freight revenue on some sales, but failed to provide the 
corresponding freight expenses. For the purposes of this preliminary 
results, we have not added freight revenue to normal value. We will 
request the correct freight information from Liepajas Metalurgs prior 
to the deadline for case briefs being due.

D. Level of Trade Adjustment

    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 level of trade as the EP transaction. The NV level of trade is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP 
sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually from exporter to importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP transactions, 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.
    In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we 
obtained information from Liepajas Metalurgs about the marketing stages 
involved in the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for 
each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and 
home market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the 
starting price before any adjustments.
    In conducting our level-of-trade analysis for Liepajas Metalurgs, 
we examined the specific types of customers, the channels of 
distribution, and the selling practices of the respondent. Generally, 
if the reported levels of trade are the same, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
reports levels of trade that are different for different categories of 
sales, the functions and activities may be dissimilar. We found the 
following.
    Liepajas Metalurgs reported two channels of distribution in the 
home market: (1) Direct sales by Liepajas Metalurgs; and (2) sales by 
Liepajas Metalurgs' affiliated reseller Armaturas Servisa Centrs 
(ASC).\3\ In the U.S. market, Liepajas Metalurgs reported one channel 
of distribution: direct sales by Liepajas Metalurgs. The company 
reported three customer categories in the home market: (1) Traders; (2) 
end users; and (3) service centers. We found that the selling functions 
performed by Liepajas Metalurgs differed significantly for home market 
customers depending on the channel of distribution. The activities 
performed by ASC were in greater number and more advanced than those 
provided by Liepajas Metalurgs on

[[Page 32510]]

direct sales. ASC provided selling functions such as customer 
negotiation, warehousing, sorting, repacking, and freight delivery, 
while Liepajas Metalurgs only negotiated with customers and arranged 
delivery of the product. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined 
that sales through ASC are at a more advanced level of trade than 
Liepajas Metalurgs' direct sales in the home market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Liepajas Metalurgs sold its share in ASC on August 19, 2003. 
For all sales subsequent to that date, Liepajas Metalurgs reported 
its sales to ASC as direct sales to an unaffiliated customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Liepajas Metalurgs has reported one customer category in the U.S. 
market: traders. In comparing EP sales to the direct sales in the home 
market, we found that the selling functions performed by Liepajas 
Metalurgs were very similar in the U.S. and Latvian markets. For U.S. 
sales, Liepajas Metalurgs conducts negotiations with the traders and 
arranges delivery to the port. Therefore, we concluded that the EP and 
home market direct sales were made at the same level of trade. Since 
Liepajas Metalurgs' direct home market and U.S. sales are at the same 
level of trade, and ASC's home market sales are at a more advanced 
level of trade and a pattern of consistent price differences exists, we 
have preliminarily determined that a level of trade adjustment is 
warranted when we based NV on sales made through ASC. We have 
calculated a level of trade adjustment based on the difference in price 
between the two levels of trade in the home market for U.S. sales that 
match to sales made through ASC.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average margin exists for the period September 1, 
2002, through August 31, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-average margin
                 Producer                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs....  4.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the 
date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. 
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues 
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days 
after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are 
requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) 
a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. 
Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all 
appropriate entries. We will calculate 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. Since the 
delivery terms for all of Liepajas Metalurgs' U.S. sales were FOB 
Latvian seaport, we will calculate entered value using the gross unit 
price reported in the U.S. sales database. Where the assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries 
of subject merchandise by that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
rebar from Latvia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of 
the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate listed above for Liepajas Metalurgs 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review, 
except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis, 
the cash deposit will be zero; (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 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) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit 
rate will be 17.21 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation. These cash 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) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entities 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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 2, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-13071 Filed 6-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P