[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54108-54117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2080]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-485-803]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania: 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent To Rescind in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from a domestic interested party 
(International Steel Group, Inc.), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania. 
The period of review is August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. With 
regard to two Romanian companies, producer Ispat Sidex, S.A. (Sidex) 
and exporter Metalexportimport, S.A. (MEI), we preliminarily determine 
that sales have been made below normal value (NV). With regard to CSR 
SA Resita (CSR) and MINMET, S.A. (MINMET), we are giving notice that we 
intend to rescind this review based on record evidence that there were 
no entries into the United States of subject merchandise during the 
period of review (POR). For a full discussion of the intent to rescind 
with respect to CSR and MINMET, see the ``Notice of Intent to Rescind 
in Part'' section of this notice below.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue(s), and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument(s).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Barnett-Dahl, Brandon Farlander, 
and Abdelali Elouaradia at (202) 482-3833, (202) 482-0182, and (202) 
482-1374, respectively; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement 
Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On August 1, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania, 68 FR 45218 
(August 1, 2003). On August 29, 2003, the Department received a timely 
request from the International Steel Group, Inc. (ISG), a domestic 
interested party, requesting that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate shipments exported to the United States from 
the following Romanian plate producers/exporters during the period of 
August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003: (1) Sidex, (2) MEI, (3) CSR, and 
(4) MINMET. On September 30, 2003, the Department initiated an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Romania, for the period covering August 
1, 2002, through July 31, 2003, to determine whether merchandise 
imported into the United States is being sold at less than NV with 
respect to these four companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in 
Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 68 FR 56262 (September 30, 
2003) (Administrative Review Initiation).
    On October 24, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to the four above-referenced Romanian companies. Because 
Romania graduated to market economy status on January 1, 2003, the POR 
is divided into both a non-market economy (NME) portion (August 1, 
2002, through December 31, 2002) and a market economy (ME) portion 
(January 1, 2003, through July

[[Page 54109]]

31, 2003).\1\ On October 30, 2003, MINMET submitted a letter stating 
that it has never shipped subject merchandise to the United States, 
including during the POR. On November 12, 2003, CSR stated that it has 
not produced or sold subject merchandise since 1972, and thus did not 
have any shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 12672, 12673 (March 
17, 2003), the Department reviewed the non-market economy status of 
Romania and determined to reclassify Romania as a market economy for 
purposes of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, 
pursuant to section 771(18)(A) of the Act, effective January 1, 2003 
(Romanian graduation). See Memorandum from Lawrence Norton, Import 
Policy Analyst, to Joseph Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and 
Pressure Pipe from Romania--Non-Market Economy Status Review (March 
10, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 7, 2003, we instructed CSR and Sidex that an NME 
questionnaire response was required for the entire POR for Sections A, 
C, and D, and a ME questionnaire response was required for Sections A, 
B, C, D, and E for January 1, 2003, through July 31, 2003. On November 
21, 2003, we received Section A ME responses from Sidex and MEI.\2\ On 
November 24, 2003, we received Section A NME responses from Sidex and 
MEI. On December 22, 2003, Sidex and MEI jointly filed a combined NME 
Section C response.\3\ On December 22, 2003, Sidex filed a ME Section B 
response and MEI stated, in this same filing, that MEI did not have any 
home market (HM) sales during the ME portion of the POR and, thus, 
would not be filing a Section B response. On December 22, 2003, Sidex 
and MEI jointly filed a Section C ME response. Also, on December 22, 
2003, Sidex and MEI jointly filed a Section C NME response. Finally, on 
December 22, 2003, Sidex filed a Section D NME response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ MEI stated on page 13 of its Section A ME response that it 
is a commissioned agent and, on page 2, that it only sold in the 
United States subject merchandise produced by Sidex during the POR.
    \3\ Sidex and MEI filed a joint Section C NME response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 2003, IPSCO Steel Inc. (IPSCO), a domestic 
interested party, filed deficiency comments on Sections B through D of 
the questionnaire responses for Sidex and exporter MEI. On December 31, 
2003, ISG filed deficiency comments on Sections B through D of the 
questionnaire responses for Sidex and MEI. On January 6, 2004, IPSCO 
filed deficiency comments on Section D of Sidex's NME response.
    On January 7, 2004, we invited interested parties to comment on the 
Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production 
of comparable merchandise in the potential countries, and to submit 
publicly-available information to value the factors of production. On 
January 13, 2004, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Sidex. On 
January 27, 2004, we received a partial supplemental questionnaire 
response from Sidex. On February 11, 2004, we received Sidex's 
supplemental questionnaire response for the remaining questions. On 
January 16, 2004, ISG filed a letter regarding the most appropriate 
surrogate country. On January 23, 2004, Sidex filed a letter regarding 
the most appropriate surrogate country. On January 30, 2004, Sidex 
filed rebuttal comments on ISG's January 16, 2004, letter regarding the 
most appropriate surrogate country. On February 18, 2004, ISG filed 
deficiency comments on Sidex's and MEI's questionnaire responses. On 
February 27, 2004, ISG filed additional comments regarding the most 
appropriate surrogate country.
    On March 11, 2004, the Department fully extended the preliminary 
results of this proceeding until August 30, 2004. See Notice of 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Romania, 69 FR 11593 (March 11, 2004).
    On April 26, 2004, the Department issued its second supplemental 
questionnaire to Sidex and MEI. On April 30, 2004, ISG filed two 
surrogate value submissions. On May 5, 2004, ISG filed additional 
surrogate value data. On May 17, 2004, we received Sidex's second 
supplemental questionnaire response. On May 25, 2004, the Department 
issued its third supplemental questionnaire to Sidex and MEI. On May 
28, 2004, and June 7, 2004, the Department spoke with counsel for Sidex 
and asked Sidex additional questions to be answered in Sidex's third 
supplemental questionnaire response.\4\ On June 4, 2004, Sidex and MEI 
filed a joint partial response to the Department's third supplemental 
questionnaire. On June 14, 2004, Sidex and MEI filed a joint complete 
response to the Department's third supplemental questionnaire. On June 
15, 2004, Sidex and MEI jointly filed an amended factors of production 
database. On June 16, 2004, Sidex and MEI jointly filed an amended 
imported and domestic material database. On August 2, 2004, and August 
11, 2004, ISG submitted pre-preliminary results comments. On August 3, 
2004, August 4, 2004, and August 5, 2004, Sidex submitted surrogate 
value data. On August 9, 2004, Sidex submitted new databases (HM ME, 
U.S. ME, U.S. NME, NME factor of production (FOP)) in response to the 
Department's request for certain corrections to these databases as a 
result of verification corrections and findings. Also, on August 9, 
2004, the Department requested that Sidex submit its SG&A and interest 
expense ratios to enable the Department to calculate cost of 
production, which will be used for the constructed export price (CEP) 
profit calculation. On August 10, 2004, ISG and Sidex submitted 
proposed surrogate values. On August 11, 2004, Sidex submitted proposed 
surrogate values. On August 11, 2004, IPSCO filed pre-preliminary 
results comments. On August 12, 2004, Sidex submitted its selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) and interest expense ratios. On 
August 16, 2004, ISG submitted proposed surrogate values. On August 20, 
2004, Sidex submitted proposed surrogate values and, on August 25, 
2004, ISG submitted rebuttal comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ex-parte meeting memoranda to the file dated May 28, 
2004 and June 7, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular 
exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the 
period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales 
of the subject merchandise. The Department explained this practice in 
the preamble to the Department's regulations. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27317 (May 19, 1997) 
(``Preamble''); see also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: 
Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002) and 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001). 
As discussed above, on October 30, 2003, MINMET submitted a letter 
stating that it has never made shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States, including during the POR. On November 12, 2003, CSR 
stated that it has not produced or sold subject merchandise since the 
year 1972 and, thus, did not have any shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United

[[Page 54110]]

States during the POR. To confirm CSR's and MINMET's statements of no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, 
on August 5, 2004, the Department conducted a customs inquiry and 
determined to our satisfaction that there were no entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily intends to rescind this 
review as to CSR and MINMET.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The products covered in this review include hot-rolled carbon steel 
universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces 
or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not 
exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 
millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of 
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether 
or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic 
substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in 
straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, 
plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or 
coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters 
or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and 
measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the 
HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 
7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 
7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 
7212.50.0000. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of 
nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-
70 plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), and section 351.307 of the Department's regulations, we 
conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of Sidex, MEI, 
and Sidex's U.S. affiliate, Ispat North America (INA). We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of Sidex's 
production facility. Our verification results are outlined in the 
following two memoranda: (1) Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali 
Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of U.S. Sales and Factors of 
Production Information Submitted by Ispat Sidex S.A. (Sidex) and 
Metalexportimport S.A. (MEI), dated August 2, 2004 (Sidex/MEI 
Verification Report); and (2) Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali 
Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of U.S. Sales Information 
Submitted by Ispat North America Inc. (INA), dated August 2, 2004 (INA 
Verification Report). Public versions of these reports are on file in 
the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in room B-099 of the Main 
Commerce Building.
    The following sections refer to the NME portion of the POR (August 
1, 2002, through December 31, 2002).

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 
an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de 
facto), with respect to its export activities. In this review, both 
Sidex and MEI requested separate, company-specific rates.
    To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent in its 
export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate, 
company-specific rate, the Department analyzes the exporting entity in 
an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of 
China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), and amplified by 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-22587 
(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).
    The Department's separate-rate test is unconcerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed 
to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the 
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995).
    Both Sidex and MEI provided separate-rate information in their 
responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, 
we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether the export 
activities of MEI, who was the exporter of record for all of Sidex's 
U.S. sales, were independent from government control (see Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the 
People's Republic of China, 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)). We also 
performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether the export 
activities of Sidex were independent from government control.

Sidex

De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    Sidex has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate 
absence of de jure control, including Law No. 15/1990 (State-Owned 
Enterprise Restructuring), Law No. 31/1990 (Company Law), the Law No. 
26/1990 (Trade Registry Law), Emergency Ordinance 88/1997, with 
amendments becoming Law 99/1999 (Privatization of Commercial 
Companies), Government Ordinance No. 70/1994, approved by Law No. 73/
1996 and amended and completed by Law No. 106/1998 (Corporate Income 
Tax Law), and Ordinance No. 92/1997, approved by Law No. 241/1998 
(Equal Treatment for Foreign Investors in the Privatization Process). 
See Exhibit 3 of Sidex's November 24, 2003, submission.
    Sidex is a private joint stock commercial company organized under 
the Law on Restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises, Law No. 15/1990 
and the Romanian Commercial

[[Page 54111]]

Companies Law, Law No. 31/1990, as amended. These Romanian laws provide 
Sidex with the right to establish business organizations for the 
purpose of conducting any lawful commercial activity, including the 
export of subject merchandise, provided that the company registers with 
the government.\5\ Sidex's business license (i.e., Certificat de 
Inregistrare or Certificate of Registration) certifies completion of 
all formalities required for registration with the government.\6\ This 
license does not limit the scope of the activities of the company,\7\ 
but it may be revoked if the company violates Romanian law. The 
activities of Sidex are limited only by its own articles of 
incorporation, bylaws, or equivalent documents, which establish the 
scope of Sidex's business activities. Sidex stated that its scope of 
activity is broad in that it can do any number of activities related to 
the sale of hot-rolled steel and other products, including exporting. 
There are no export licenses required or granted by the government, and 
the company's license does not allow any special entitlements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commercial Law No. 15/1990 remains the primary corporate 
law in Romania. This law, however, has been amended by other laws 
such as Law No. 31/1990 (Company Law) and Law No. 58/1991 
(Privatization Law).
    \6\ See Exhibit 4 of Sidex's November 24, 2003 Section A NME 
response.
    \7\ See pages 6 and 7 of Sidex's November 24, 2003 Section A NME 
response.
    \8\ See page 6 of Sidex's November 24, 2003 Section A NME 
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, Sidex has submitted copies of Law No. 15/1990, Law 
No. 26/1990, Law No. 31/1990, Ordinance No. 70/1994, and Ordinance No. 
92/1997. These enactments are the fundamental laws authorizing the 
privatization of commercial companies and establishing the legal regime 
applicable to commercial companies. We note that Emergency Ordinance 
88/1997, amended and completed by Law No. 99/1999, established a new 
framework for the privatization process and Sidex stated that, prior to 
its own privatization, it participated in some or all of these 
privatization procedures, or in procedures regulated by previous 
privatization laws. Sidex stated that it was privatized effective 
November 16, 2001, when LNM Holdings N.V. and the Romanian Authority 
for Privatization and Administration of State Ownership (APAPS) 
finalized the purchase by LNM Holding N.V. of the majority share 
capital of Sidex. We confirmed the ownership percentages for Sidex's 
owners at verification and found no evidence of government control. See 
Sidex/MEI Verification Report at 12-13. Moreover, the results of 
verification support the information provided regarding these Romanian 
laws.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of 
de jure control over Sidex's export activities.

De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its 
export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject 
to the approval of, a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.
    Sidex has asserted the following: (1) It is a private joint stock 
commercial company that is independent from government control; (2) it 
sets its U.S. prices for its export price (EP) sales by arm's-length, 
direct negotiations with the U.S. customers and MEI, and such prices 
consider the company's costs, profit, and competition; (3) it sets its 
U.S. prices for its CEP sales based on market conditions and that 
Sidex's U.S. affiliate, INA, negotiates its prices for these sales; (4) 
regardless of whether the U.S. sale was an EP or CEP transaction, there 
is no government participation in the setting of its prices; (5) its 
Export Sales Manager, as well as other officials, are authorized to 
sign export-related contracts on its behalf; (6) it does not have to 
obtain government approval of its management selection, although it is 
required to notify the Registry of Trade of any changes that occur at 
the top management level, providing the Registry of Trade with an 
updated list of the company's legal representatives (administrators and 
general director); (7) there are no restrictions on the use of its 
export revenue, and the General Assembly of Shareholders decides how 
profits will be used; and (8) it is not required to sell any portion of 
foreign currency earned to the government. Our analysis of the 
responses during verification reveals no other information indicating 
the existence of government control. See Sidex/MEI Verification Report 
at 13. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over the 
company's export activities, we preliminarily determine that Sidex has 
met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

MEI

De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    MEI has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate 
absence of de jure control, including Law No. 15/1990 (State-Owned 
Enterprise Restructuring), Law No. 31/1990 (Company Law), the Law No. 
26/1990 (Trade Registry Law), Emergency Ordinance 88/1997, with 
amendments becoming Law 99/1999 (Privatization of Commercial 
Companies), Government Ordinance No. 70/1994, approved by Law No. 73/
1996 and amended and completed by Law No. 106/1998 (Corporate Income 
Tax Law), and Ordinance No. 92/1997, approved by Law No. 241/1998 
(Equal Treatment for Foreign Investors in the Privatization Process). 
See Exhibit 3 of Sidex's November 24, 2003, submission.
    MEI is a joint-stock commercial company organized under the 
Romanian Commercial Companies Law, Law No. 31/1990, as amended. This 
Romanian laws provides MEI with the right to establish business 
organizations for the purpose of conducting any lawful commercial 
activity, including the export of subject merchandise, provided that 
the company registers with the government.\9\ MEI's business license 
(i.e., Certificat de Inregistrare or Certificate of Registration) 
certifies completion of all formalities required for registration with 
the government.\10\ This license does not limit the scope of the 
activities of the company,\11\ but it may be revoked if the company 
violates Romanian law. The activities of MEI are limited only by its 
own articles of incorporation, bylaws, or equivalent documents, which 
establish the scope of MEI's business activities. MEI stated

[[Page 54112]]

that its scope of activity is broad in that it can do any number of 
activities related to the sale of steel and other products, including 
exporting. There are no export licenses required or granted by the 
government, and the company's license does not allow any special 
entitlements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commercial Law No. 15/1990 remains the primary corporate 
law in Romania. This law, however, has been amended by other laws 
such as Law No. 31/1990 (Company Law) and Law No. 58/1991 
(Privatization Law).
    \10\ See Exhibit 3 of MEI's November 24, 2003 Section A NME 
response.
    \11\ See pages 7 and 8 of MEI's November 24, 2003 Section A NME 
response.
    \12\ See page 8 of MEI's November 24, 2003 Section A NME 
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, MEI has submitted copies of Law No. 15/1990, Law 
No. 26/1990, Law No. 31/1990, Ordinance No. 70/1994, and Ordinance No. 
92/1997. These enactments are the fundamental laws authorizing the 
privatization of commercial companies and establishing the legal regime 
applicable to commercial companies. MEI stated that at the first stage 
of privatization, on May 31, 1993, 63.81 percent of the company's 
shares were sold mostly to the company's employees and that, currently, 
MEI is 100 percent privately owned by existing and former employees and 
by the management of MEI. We confirmed the ownership percentages for 
MEI's owners at verification and we found no evidence of government 
control. Moreover, the results of verification support the information 
provided regarding these Romanian laws. See Sidex/MEI Verification 
Report at 30-31.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of 
de jure control over MEI's export activities.

De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its 
export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject 
to the approval of, a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.
    MEI has asserted the following: (1) It is a joint-stock company 
that is independent from government control; (2) it sets its U.S. 
prices via direct negotiations with its customers (except for companies 
affiliated with Sidex), and such prices consider the company's costs, 
market demands, and market conditions, and MEI notes that there is a 
commission agreement between itself and Sidex for the sales it makes on 
behalf of Sidex; (3) there is no government participation in its 
setting of its prices; (4) its General Director and three Executive 
Directors have the authority to approve export sale contracts; (5) it 
does not have to have government approval of its management selection 
but it does notify the government of changes; (6) there are no 
restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (7) it is not 
required to sell any portion of foreign currency earned to the 
government. Our analysis of the responses during verification reveals 
no other information indicating the existence of government control. 
See Sidex/MEI Verification Report at 31, where the Department reviewed 
a sales contract between Sidex and MEI and we found no evidence 
government officials were involved in the contract or negotiations or 
in the exchange of currency. Consequently, because evidence on the 
record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in 
fact, over MEI's export activities, we preliminarily determine that MEI 
has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Sidex's sales of the subject merchandise from 
Romania to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared 
the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and 
Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. Because Romania has been graduated to a market economy country 
(see Romanian graduation, 68 FR at 12673), consistent with the 
effective date of that graduation, January 1, 2003, we have employed a 
non-market economy (NME) methodology to calculate NV for the period 
covering August 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002, and a market 
economy methodology for the period covering January 1, 2003, through 
July 31, 2003. Thus, there are two NV sections below.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price is the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which 
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the 
United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and 
(d). For purposes of this administrative review, Sidex has classified 
its sales as both EP and CEP. Sidex identified two channels of 
distribution for U.S. sales: (1) Sidex to MEI to unaffiliated steel 
traders who typically sell to resellers and end-users; and (2) Sidex to 
MEI to INA and then to unaffiliated U.S. customers, who are 
distributors.
    For U.S. sales channel one (i.e., Sidex/MEI sales to an 
unaffiliated U.S. customer), we based our calculation on EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or for export to the United 
States prior to importation, and CEP methodology was not otherwise 
indicated. We calculated EP on the packed, delivered, tax and duty paid 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign 
inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage 
and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage 
and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses (i.e., U.S. 
stevedoring, wharfage, and survey), and U.S. customs duty.
    For U.S. sales channel two (i.e., Sidex/MEI/INA sales to an 
unaffiliated U.S. customer), Sidex/MEI has reported these sales as CEP 
sales because the first sale to an unaffiliated party occurred in the 
United States. Therefore, for these channel two sales, we based our 
calculation on CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) 
of the Act. Where applicable, we made a deduction to gross unit price 
for early payment discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, 
where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation 
expenses (i.e., U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and survey), and U.S. 
customs duty. Also, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 
we deducted packing expenses because packing expenses are included in 
CEP. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of

[[Page 54113]]

the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses, commissions, and bank 
expenses) and indirect selling expenses. For CEP sales, we also made an 
adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. 
We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 
772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act.

Normal Value Using NME Methodology

    As discussed above, consistent with the January 1, 2003, effective 
date of graduation of Romania to ME country status, we have applied an 
NME methodology for the period August 1, 2002, through December 31, 
2002.
    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) available 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the 
factors of production to determine NV for Sidex. See Factors of 
Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 30, 2004 (Factor 
Valuation Memo). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the 
CRU located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.
    We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations. 
We determine that Egypt, Algeria, and the Philippines (1) are 
comparable to Romania in its level of economic development, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. However, we have 
selected Egypt as the primary surrogate country and our first choice 
for surrogate values. If we cannot find a surrogate value in Egypt 
because the Egyptian data is either unavailable or unusable, we 
selected surrogate values from the Philippines and Algeria and, as 
explained in the Factor Valuation Memo, there are steel producers in 
both the Philippines and Algeria. Accordingly, we valued the factors of 
production using publicly-available information from primarily Egypt 
but also the Philippines and Algeria.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our 
practice. See, e.g., Honey From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 25060 
(May 5, 2004) and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; and Fresh Garlic 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002) and accompanying 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. Where appropriate, we adjusted 
Egyptian (or the relevant surrogate country) import prices by adding 
foreign inland freight expenses to make them delivered prices. When we 
used Egyptian (or the relevant surrogate country) import values to 
value inputs sourced domestically by Romanian suppliers, we added to 
the Egyptian (or the relevant surrogate country) surrogate values an 
Egyptian surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the 
reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the 
distance from the nearest port of export to the factory. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values for factors 
sourced domestically by Romanian suppliers, we based freight for inputs 
on the actual distance from the input supplier to the site at which the 
input was used. See, e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 
FR 69988, 69992 (December 16, 2003). When we relied on Egyptian (or the 
relevant surrogate country) import values to value inputs, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from 
both NMEs and countries deemed to have generally available export 
subsidies (i.e., Indonesia, Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate 
value calculations. For those surrogate values not contemporaneous with 
the POR, we adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price indices 
for Egypt (or the relevant surrogate country), as published in the 
International Monetary Fund's publication, International Financial 
Statistics.
    For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for Sidex, 
including market-economy inputs, see the Factor Valuation Memo.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
    Pursuant to section 351.408(c)(1) of our regulations, we used the 
actual price paid by respondents for inputs purchased from a market-
economy supplier and paid for in a market-economy currency, except when 
prices may have been distorted by subsidies. Thus, we used market-
economy input prices for the following material inputs: coking coal, 
iron ore powder, iron pellets, iron lumps, sulfuric acid, 
ferromanganese, ferrosilicon, silicomanganese, ferrovanadium, 
ferrochrome, nickel, ferromolybdenum, ferroboron, calcium flouride, and 
slab.
    We used Egyptian import statistical data for 2002 from the Egyptian 
Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), the 
Egyptian government's official statistical agency, to value the 
following material inputs: manganese ore, metallurgical coke, iron 
scrap, caustic soda, aluminum, and lime.
    We used Filipino import data for 2002 from the World Trade Atlas 
(WTA) to value the following material inputs: scale, slag, petroleum 
coke, ferrotitanium, and silicocalcium. To value limestone, we used 
Filipino import statistics for 2001 from the WTA because the 2002 data 
is aberrational for Egypt, the Philippines and Algeria. In addition, 
for limestone, we inflated this data to make the data contemporaneous 
with the POR.
    For energy, we used an Egyptian electricity source from 2001 and we 
inflated this data to make the data contemporaneous with the POR. For 
methane gas, we used Filipino import data from WTA for 2002. For 
injected coal powder, we used Egyptian import data from CAPMAS for 
2002.
    For labor, we used the Romanian regression-based wage rate at 
Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. Because of the variability of wage 
rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products, 
section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use 
of a regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on 
the Import Administration's Web site is the Year Book of Labour 
Statistics 2001, International Labour Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter 
5B: Wages in Manufacturing.
    For by-products, we valued ammonium sulfate, crude benzene, and raw 
tar using Egyptian import data for 2002 from CAPMAS. For the remaining 
by-products (ammonia water, iron slag, coke gas, and furnace gas), we 
used Filipino import data from the WTA for 2002. Consistent with the 
final results of petroleum wax candles from China, we limited the by-
product credit to the

[[Page 54114]]

amount actually produced and sold during the POR and not the amount 
sold during the POR, since Sidex reported that for several by-products, 
it sold more of the by-product than it produced during the POR. See 
Notice of Final Results and Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 12121, 12125 (March 15, 2004). Hence, we are 
adjusting Sidex's factors of production downward for the by-products in 
which Sidex reported these factors based on the sales quantity (which 
was more than the production quantity) and capping the factor based on 
the amount sold/produced during the POR.
    To value packing materials (i.e., wooden boards and steel straps or 
wire rod), we relied upon Egyptian import data from CAPMAS and Filipino 
import data from WTA for 2002, respectively.
    To value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, we relied upon 
publicly-available information in the 2002-2003 annual report of the 
Egyptian Iron & Steel Co. (Egyptian Iron), an integrated steel producer 
of subject merchandise in Egypt. Consistent with Department practice, 
we are using the financial statement for calculation of the overhead 
and SG&A (with interest) ratios of an integrated steel producer 
(Egyptian Iron) as a surrogate because Sidex is also an integrated 
steel producer and the experiences of Egyptian Iron are more reflective 
of Sidex's business experiences than of a non-integrated steel 
producer. See Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 12672 (March 17, 2003) 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (where the Department stated that 
it is inappropriate to use the financial statement of fully integrated 
steel producer Al Ezz because Al Ezz's business experiences, which were 
more capital intensive and had different raw material and energy 
requirements, differed from respondent Silcotub, which is not an 
integrated steel producer). However, Egyptian Iron did not make a 
profit in the 2002-2003 period. Because it is the Department's practice 
to use a profit rate, we are using the profit rate from the financial 
statement of a non-integrated Egyptian steel producer (El Nasr Steel 
Pipes and Fittings Co.) for our calculations. See Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 
25545 (May 7, 2004) (where the Department used the financial statement 
of Asahi India Safety Glass Limited for the profit ratio because Saint-
Gobain Sekurit India Limited, whose financial statement the Department 
used to calculate factory overhead and SG&A, incurred a loss during 
this time period).
    To value truck freight rates, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for 
inflation) provided by a trucking company located in Egypt. For rail 
transportation, we valued rail rates in Egypt using information used in 
Titanium Sponge from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 66169 
(November 24, 1999), which were initially obtained from a 1999 letter 
from the Egyptian International House. To value barge rates, we are 
using the truck rate because we do not have any surrogate value barge 
rates on the record of this proceeding.
    For domestic brokerage and handling incurred in Romania, we used a 
1999 rate (adjusted for inflation) provided by a trucking and shipping 
company located in Alexandria, Egypt. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    For details on factor of production valuation calculations, see 
Factor Valuation Memo.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the 
Department's regulations based on the rates certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.
    The following sections refer to the ME portion of the POR (January 
1, 2003, through July 31, 2003).

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the ``Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order'' section 
above, which were produced and sold by Sidex in the home market during 
the POR, to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. 
We relied on eight characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in 
order of preference): (1) Painting; (2) quality; (3) specification and/
or grade; (4) heat treatments; (5) standard thickness; (6) standard 
width; (7) whether or not checkered (floor plate); and (8) descaling. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market 
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting 
instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. See Appendix V 
of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to Sidex dated 
October 24, 2003.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Sidex's sales of the subject merchandise from 
Romania to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared 
the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and 
Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. Because Romania has been graduated to a market economy country 
(see Romanian graduation, 68 FR at 12673), consistent with the 
effective date of that graduation, January 1, 2003, to calculate NV, we 
have employed a non-market economy methodology for the period covering 
August 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 and a market economy 
methodology for the period covering January 1, 2003 through July 31, 
2003. Thus, there are two NV sections in the notice.
    For the ME methodology, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we compared 
the export prices (or constructed export prices) of individual U.S. 
transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the 
foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course 
of trade.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price is the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which 
the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the 
United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections (c) and 
(d). For purposes of this administrative review, Sidex has classified 
its sales as both EP and CEP. Sidex identified two channels of 
distribution for U.S. sales: (1) Sidex to MEI to unaffiliated steel 
traders who typically sell to reseller and end-users; and (2) Sidex to 
MEI to INA

[[Page 54115]]

and then to unaffiliated U.S. customers, who are distributors.
    For U.S. sales channel one (i.e., Sidex/MEI sales to unaffiliated 
steel traders), we based our calculation on EP, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by 
the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or for export to the United States prior to 
importation, and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. We 
calculated EP on the packed, delivered, tax and duty paid price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 
these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the 
plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, 
other U.S. transportation expenses (i.e., U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, 
and survey), and U.S. customs duty.
    For U.S. sales channel two (i.e., Sidex/MEI/INA sales to an 
unaffiliated U.S. customer), Sidex/MEI has reported these sales as CEP 
sales because the first sale to an unaffiliated party occurred in the 
United States. Therefore, for these channel two sales, we based our 
calculation on CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) 
of the Act. Where applicable, we made a deduction to gross unit price 
for early payment discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, 
where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation 
expenses (i.e., U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and survey), and U.S. 
customs duty. Also, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 
we deducted packing expenses because packing expenses are included in 
CEP. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States, including direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit 
expenses, commissions, and bank expenses) and indirect selling 
expenses. For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit 
allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) 
in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on 
total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less 
all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to 
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the 
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and 
home markets.

Normal Value Using ME Methodology

    As discussed above, consistent with the January 1, 2003 effective 
date of ME graduation, we have applied a ME methodology for the period 
covering January 1, 2003 through July 31, 2003.

1. Home Market Viability

    We compared the aggregate volume of HM sales of the foreign like 
product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether 
the volume of the foreign like product sold in Romania was sufficient, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis for NV. 
Because the volume of HM sales of the foreign like product was greater 
than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based the 
determination of NV upon the HM sales of the foreign like product. 
Thus, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold for consumption in Romania, in the usual commercial 
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent 
possible, at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP sales, as 
appropriate. After testing home market viability, we calculated NV as 
noted in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section of this notice.

2. Arm's-Length Test

    Sidex reported that it made sales in the HM to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers. The Department did not require Sidex to report 
its affiliated party's downstream sales because these sales represented 
less than five percent of total HM sales. Sales to affiliated customers 
in the HM not made at arm's length were excluded from our analysis. To 
test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the 
starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net 
of all billing adjustments, movement charges, direct selling expenses, 
discounts and packing. 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, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated 
party were at arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings--Affiliated 
Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 
2002).

3. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We based NV on the HM to unaffiliated purchasers and those 
affiliated customer sales which passed the arm's length test. We made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We 
made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses (i.e., inland 
freight from plant to distribution warehouse and warehousing expenses) 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for imputed credit and interest 
revenue, where appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C). In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted HM packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs. Where applicable, we modified the gross unit 
price based on billing adjustments. Finally, in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act, where the Department was unable to determine NV 
on the basis of contemporaneous matches in accordance with 
773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV on CV. We did not make any adjustments to 
Sidex's reported HM sales data in the calculation of NV.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the 
Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We note that although MEI was the exporter for all of Sidex's 
sales, because Sidex provided information that it had knowledge that 
the subject merchandise was destined for the United States, we have 
calculated a margin for both Sidex as the producer and MEI as the 
exporter. We preliminarily determine that the following margin is the 
weighted-average antidumping duty margin of all sales made in both the 
NME and ME portions of the POR:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
        Manufacturer/exporter                  POR            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ispat Sidex, S.A....................    08/01/02--07/30/03         33.19

[[Page 54116]]

 
Metalexportimport, S.A..............    08/01/02--07/30/03         33.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for Sidex and MEI, see the Analysis Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 
dated August 30, 2004. A public version of this memorandum is on file 
in the CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon 
issuance of the final results of this review, if any importer-specific 
assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis 
(i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by 
applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. 
For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment 
rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due 
for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the 
total quantity of the sales to that importer. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP 
to assess the resulting rate against the total quantity for the subject 
merchandise on each of Sidex's importer's/customer's entries during the 
POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication 
of the final results of this review for all shipments of certain cut-
to-length carbon steel plate from Romania entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided 
for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise 
exported by MEI or Sidex, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 
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(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 
(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in 
this review, 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 original 
less than fair value (LTFV) investigation (see Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Romania, 58 FR 37209 (July 9, 1993)), but the manufacturer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established in 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 the 
``all others'' rate described in the final results of this review. We 
invite comments on the value to be used for the ``all others'' rate.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    We note that the cash deposit rate established in the final results 
of this review will be applied prospectively to cover future entries. 
Given that the effective date of the Department's decision to treat 
Romania as an ME was within the POR, we have applied both NME and ME 
methodologies to calculate the antidumping margins in this review. The 
Department is considering whether it is more appropriate to base MEI's 
and Sidex's cash deposit rate on a weighted-average margin calculated 
using only sales from the seven-month ME portion of the POR or, 
alternatively, a weighted-average margin calculated using all sales 
from both the NME and ME portions of the POR. We invite comments on 
this issue.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 
351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in 
accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any 
hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written 
request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an 
identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within 
five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an 
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal 
presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will 
issue the final results of this review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's 
regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
these review periods. 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 administrative review and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 54117]]


    Dated: August 30, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E4-2080 Filed 9-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P