[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64726-64731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-3071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-274-804]


Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Trinidad and Tobago

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

[[Page 64727]]


ACTION: Notice of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department 
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod 
(``wire rod'') from Trinidad and Tobago for the period of review 
(``POR'') April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Carribean Ispat 
Limited and its affiliates Ispat North America Inc. (``INA'') and 
Walker Wire (Ipsat), Inc. (``Walker Wire'') (collectively ``CIL''), 
sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV''). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties equal to the 
difference between the export price (``EP'') or constructed export 
price (``CEP'') and NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding 
should also submit with them: (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a 
brief summary of the comments. Further, parties submitting written 
comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic 
version of the public version of any such comments on diskette.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or James Terpstra, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5973 or (202) 482-3965, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 
Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945. On October 1, 2003, we published in 
the Federal Register the notice of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 56618.
    We received timely requests for review from petitioners,\1\ and 
CIL, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 28, 2003, we 
published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review covering the period April 10, 2002, through 
September 30, 2003, naming CIL as the respondent. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 66799 
(November 28, 2003). On December 9, 2003, we sent a questionnaire to 
CIL.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are Co-Steel Raritan, Inc., GS Industries, 
Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel 
Texas, Inc.
    Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and 
Merchandise
    Section B: Comparison Market Sales
    Section C: Sales to the United States
    Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value
    Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or Assemble Performed in 
the United States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in 
which CIL participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that 
failed the cost test.\3\ Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we had reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales by CIL of the foreign like product 
under consideration for the determination of NV in this review were 
made at prices below the cost of production (``COP''). Therefore, we 
initiated a cost investigation of the respondent, and instructed it to 
fill out section D upon issuance of the initial questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The most recently completed segment in which CIL 
participated was the investigation. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, 67 FR 55788 (August 
30, 2002) ) (``Final Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CIL submitted its responses to the Department's questionnaire on 
January 12, 2004, January 30, 2004, and February 13, 2004. On February 
23, 2004, and March 19, 2004, the petitioners submitted comments on 
CIL's questionnaire response.
    On June 14, 2004, the Department published an extension of 
preliminary results of this review, extending its preliminary results 
until October 30, 2004.\4\ See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
From Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago: Extension of Preliminary Results 
of 2002/2003 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 32979 (June 
14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Since the due date falls on a Saturday, the actual signature 
date is November 1, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 16, 2004, the Department issued a section A-E 
supplemental questionnaire to CIL. We received the response to the 
supplemental questionnaire on September 21, 2004. On October 5, 2004, 
the Department received petitioners' comments on CIL's response to the 
Department's August 16, 2004, supplemental questionnaire. On October 
15, 2004, we received a response from CIL regarding the petitioners' 
October 5, 2004, comments.
    On October 8, 2004, the Department received a reconciliation of 
CIL's home market and U.S. sales database to its income statements. On 
October 15, 2004, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to 
further clarify the sales reconciliation. CIL submitted its response on 
October 22, 2004.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    Effective July 24, 2003, in accordance with the Department's Notice 
of Final Result of Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty 
and Countervailing Duty Orders, and Intent To Revoke Orders in Part, 68 
FR 64079 (November 12, 2003), the scope of this order was amended. 
Therefore, for purposes of this review, there were separate scopes in 
effect. These scopes are set forth below.

Scope of Order from October 29, 2002, through July 23, 2003

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid 
cross-sectional diameter.
    Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted 
physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool 
steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete 
reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel 
products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the 
following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more 
of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of 
phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 
percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire 
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire 
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no 
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 
having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon 
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 
04-

[[Page 64728]]

114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length 
greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 
mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by 
weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, 
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
    This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber 
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the 
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of 
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use 
certification for the importation of such products may be required. 
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally 
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope.
    The products under review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Scope of Order from July 24, 2003, through the POR

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid 
cross-sectional diameter.
    Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted 
physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for (a) 
stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing 
steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are 
(f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by 
weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of 
lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, 
more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of 
selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire 
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire 
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no 
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 
having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no 
deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon 
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 
04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a 
length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter 
of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing 
by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, 
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
    This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the 
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered 
to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that 
is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on 
the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) 
is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for 
purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the 
measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section 
measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This 
measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 
1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead 
quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other

[[Page 64729]]

rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the 
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of 
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use 
certification for the importation of such products may be required. 
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally 
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope.
    The products under review are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Effective January 1, 2004, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS 
numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/tariff_chapters_current/toc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of 
Review section, above, and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during the POR 
are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight 
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-
market sales of the foreign like product: grade range, carbon content 
range, surface quality, deoxidation, maximum total residual content, 
heat treatment, diameter range, and coating. These characteristics have 
been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary 
course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the 
next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the 
characteristics listed above. As we did in the investigation, we 
excluded a small percentage of CIL's U.S. sales because the merchandise 
was damaged. See Final Determination. When there were no appropriate 
comparison market sales of comparable merchandise, we compared the 
merchandise sold in the United States to constructed value (``CV''), in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago 
were made in the United States at less than 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. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly 
weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. 
transactions.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We 
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter 
outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was 
not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated 
CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated 
with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, 
made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the 
applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to 
reflect discounts.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland 
freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance, 
survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses 
from arrival to delivery incurred by INA, where appropriate.
    For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses 
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, 
and cleaning and coating). In addition, we deducted indirect selling 
expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These 
expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by 
affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for 
profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.
    For certain sales, CIL did not report payment dates because payment 
is still pending. For those sales for which payment has not yet been 
received, we set the payment date equal to the date of the preliminary 
results. We recalculated CIL's imputed credit expenses using the 
revised payment dates, where applicable, and the gross unit price 
adjusted for pricing adjustments.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
CIL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the 
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because CIL had an 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that 
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

1. Calculation of COP
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of 
CIL, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the 
respondent's comparison market sales were made below the COP. We 
calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on CIL's 
information as submitted.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had 
been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We

[[Page 64730]]

determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also 
subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses.

3. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of 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 during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an 
extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, 
because we compared prices to POR-average costs, 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 below-cost sales of a given 
product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Preliminary 
Calculation Memorandum for Caribbean Ispat Ltd., dated November 1, 
2004, on file in the Central Records Unit, room B099, for our 
calculation methodology and results.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for 
foreign inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 
In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, 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 by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense 
and warranty) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, 
warranty, and cleaning and coating expenses directly linked to sales 
transactions). For comparisons made to CEP sales, we did not add U.S. 
direct selling expenses. No other adjustments to NV were claimed or 
allowed.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department's 
regulations. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable 
cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject 
merchandise, using POR-average costs.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    When we could not determine the NV based on comparison market sales 
because there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable product, we 
compared the EP to CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of manufacturing of the 
product sold in the United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, 
profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred 
by CIL in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market.
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS 
differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred on comparison market sales.

E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP 
transaction. 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 SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is 
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from 
exporter to importer. For CEP transactions, it is the level of the 
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
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 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. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from CIL about the marketing stages involved in the 
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by CIL for each channel of distribution. 
In identifying LOTs for EP and home market sales we considered the 
selling functions reflected in the starting price before any 
adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act.
    In the home market, CIL reported sales to end-users as its only 
channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, CIL reported sales through 
two channels of distribution, one involving sales made directly by CIL 
to end-users and, occasionally, trading companies, and the second 
involving sales made by CIL's affiliated U.S. resellers to end-users. 
We have determined that the sales made by CIL directly to U.S. 
customers are EP sales and those made by CIL's affiliated U.S. 
resellers constitute CEP sales.
    We found the home market and EP sales to be at the same LOT. CIL's 
EP sales and home market sales were both made primarily to end-users. 
In both cases, the selling functions performed by CIL were almost 
identical in both markets. Other than freight & delivery arrangement, 
which was only provided for U.S. sales, and sales force development, 
which was only provided in the home market, in both markets CIL 
provided services such as: strategic and economic planning, sales 
forecasting, solicitation of orders, technical advice, price 
negotiation, processing purchase orders, invoicing, extending credit, 
managing accounts receivable, and making arrangements for warranty 
related to sales. It was therefore unnecessary to make an LOT 
adjustment for comparison of EP and home market prices.
    CIL makes CEP sales to the United States through its affiliates, 
INA and Walker Wire. Sales through CIL's affiliates are normally made 
to unrelated end-users in the U.S. market. CIL's affiliates perform all 
of the selling

[[Page 64731]]

functions, such as making freight and delivery arrangements, sales 
force development, market research, solicitation of orders, technical 
advice, negotiating prices, invoicing, acting as mill and customer 
liaison, repairing and cleaning coils, and making arrangements for 
warranty related to sales. However, because in our LOT analysis for CEP 
sales we only consider the selling activities reflected in the price 
after the deduction of the expenses incurred by the U.S. affiliate, the 
record indicates that for CIL's CEP sales there are substantially fewer 
services performed than for the sales in its home market. Therefore, we 
have determined that CIL's home market sales are made at a different, 
and more advanced, stage of marketing than the LOT of the CEP sales.
    Accordingly, we determined that an LOT adjustment may be 
appropriate when comparing to CEP sales. However, the data available 
does not permit a determination that there is a pattern of consistent 
price differences between sales at different LOTs in the home market, 
as there is only one LOT in the home market. Therefore, because CIL's 
home market sales are made at a different, and more advanced, stage of 
marketing than the LOT of the CEP sales, we have made a CEP offset to 
CIL's NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. This 
offset is equal to the amount of indirect expenses incurred in the home 
market not exceeding the amount of the deductions made from the U.S. 
price in accordance with 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales, as 
obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period 
April 10, 2002, through September 30, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caribbean Ispat Limited.....................................        3.45
All Others..................................................       12.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding 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, 
ordinarily will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the 
first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised 
in such briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with 
the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are 
requested to 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, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rate

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon 
issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any 
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to 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 margins for all U.S. sales to 
each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the 
sales to that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or 
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total 
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
company's sales during the review period.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
company listed above will be the rate established in the final results 
of this review, except if the 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 final results in which that manufacturer 
or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value 
(``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results 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 12.38 
percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. 
See Final Determination.
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    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 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.
    This administrative review is issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 1, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E4-3071 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P