[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70644-70649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-3526]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-485-806]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by United States Steel Corporation, a 
domestic interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from 
Romania. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2002, through 
October 31, 2003.
    We preliminarily find that sales have been made below normal value 
(NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on the subject 
merchandise that was exported by Ispat Sidex S.A. (Ispat Sidex) and its 
subsidiary, Sidex Trading S.R.L. (Sidex Trading), and entered during 
the POR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle at (202) 482-0650 or 
David Layton at (202) 482-0371, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 29, 2001, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on hot-rolled steel from Romania. See Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania, 66 
FR 59566 (November 29, 2001) (Amended Determination and Order). On 
November 3, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 68 FR 62279 (November 3, 
2003). On November 28, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), 
the petitioner requested a review of Ispat Sidex, a

[[Page 70645]]

producer/exporter of hot-rolled steel from Romania.
    On December 24, 2003, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
hot-rolled steel from Romania covering the period November 1, 2002, 
through October 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in 
Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 68 FR 74550 (December 24, 
2003). On July 12, 2004, the Department published a notice extending 
the deadline for the issuance of the preliminary results by 120 days 
until no later than November 29, 2004. See Extension of the Time Limit 
for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
69 FR 41785 (July 12, 2004). We are conducting this review under 
Section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    The petitioner requested an administrative review of Ispat Sidex. 
Sidex Trading is Ispat Sidex's subsidiary trading company. Ispat Sidex 
and Sidex Trading submitted a consolidated response for this review. We 
consider Sidex Trading to be part of Ispat Sidex and are thus treating 
these two companies as a single entity. See Memorandum to File: 
Treatment of Ispat Sidex S.A. and its subsidiary, Sidex Trading S.R.L., 
as a single entity (November 29, 2004).
    Romania's designation as a non-market-economy (NME) country 
remained in effect until January 1, 2003.\1\ Since the first two months 
of the POR fell before Romania's graduation to market-economy status 
and the last ten months of this POR came after its graduation, in its 
antidumping questionnaire to Ispat Sidex, dated January 26, 2004, the 
Department determined that it would treat Romania as an NME country 
from November 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002, and a market-economy 
(ME) country from January 1, 2003, through October 31, 2003. Ispat 
Sidex stated in its February 23, 2004, response to the Department's ME 
Section A questionnaire that it made no sales of subject merchandise 
during the 10-month ME period. In a separate February 23, 2004, 
submission, Ispat Sidex provided documentation to support its claim 
that it sold no subject merchandise during the ME portion of the POR. 
The Department corroborated this claim using exporter-specific CBP 
import data. See Decision Memorandum to Gary Taverman (March 9, 2004) 
available in the Department's Central Records Unit, room B099, of the 
main Commerce building (CRU). Therefore, in the section of this notice 
entitled Preliminary Results of the Review, we have calculated a 
weighted-average dumping margin reflecting the margin we calculated for 
the NME portion of the POR because we found no sales of subject 
merchandise during the ME portion of the POR. This weighted-average 
figure thus represents the margin of dumping for the entire 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. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain hot-rolled carbon 
steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or 
greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not 
painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic 
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed 
layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight length, of a 
thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 
times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products 
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 
mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 
mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not 
less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order.
    Specifically included within the scope are vacuum degassed, fully 
stabilized steels (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF) 
steels), high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for 
motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels 
with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium 
(also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize 
carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with 
micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, 
vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels 
contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and 
aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, 
regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) iron predominates, by 
weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon 
content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 
1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent 
of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 
0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of 
nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 
0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent 
of zirconium.
    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or are 
specifically excluded from the scope:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A543, 
A387, A514, A517, A506). Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American 
Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTSUS.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at 
the following subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,

[[Page 70646]]

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 
7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 
7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain 
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: 
vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the 
substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following 
tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 
7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 
7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 
7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject 
merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 
7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to 
this scope is dispositive.

Separate Rates

     A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. As 
stated above, since Romania was classified as an NME country until 
January 1, 2003, we are treating Romania as an NME country for the 
first two months of the POR, from November 1, 2002, through December 
31, 2002.
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate 
unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, 
both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether 
an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in 
light of the criteria established in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon 
Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to 
separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence 
of government control over exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact 
(de facto). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de 
jure absence of government control over export activities includes the 
following: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with 
the 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. De facto absence of government control over exports is based 
on four factors: 1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices 
independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; 2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds 
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or the financing of losses; 3) whether each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; and 4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 
59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    We have determined, according to the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, that evidence on the record demonstrates 
an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect 
to exports by Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading.
    With respect to de jure control, Ispat Sidex is part of the LNM 
Group, a private joint-stock company organized under the Romanian 
Commercial Companies Law No. 31/1990, as amended. Ispat Sidex was 
privatized on November 16, 2001, when LNM Holdings N.V. finalized its 
purchase of the majority share capital of Ispat Sidex. During the POR, 
Ispat Sidex was publicly traded on the Romanian stock exchange. Ispat 
Sidex has provided the Department with a list of its major stockholders 
that, in addition to LNM Holdings N.V., includes Moldova Financial 
Investments Company and several individual shareholders with holdings 
of less than one percent of Ispat Sidex's total shares. Sidex Trading 
is a limited-liability trading company organized under the Romanian 
Commercial Companies Law, Law No. 31/1990, as amended.
    Ispat Sidex has placed on the record documents to demonstrate the 
absence of de jure control including its list of shareholders, business 
license (``Certificat de Inregistrare''), and translations of relevant 
Romanian commercial laws, including the Romanian Commercial Companies 
Law, Law No. 31/1990, the Trade Registry Law, Law No. 26/1990, and 
various government ordinances related to the company's privatization 
and tax status. We analyzed these laws and found that they establish 
the absence of de jure control during the POR. These Romanian laws 
provide Ispat 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. The activities of Ispat Sidex are limited only by 
its own articles of incorporation and by-laws, which establish the 
scope of Ispat Sidex's business activities. Ispat Sidex's by-laws allow 
the company to engage in a broad range of activities related to the 
sale of hot-rolled steel, including exporting. There are no business or 
export licenses required or granted by the government, and the 
company's business license does not indicate the existence of any 
special entitlements. See pages A-NME-8 to A-NME-9 of Ispat Sidex's 
February 23, 2004, submission.
    With respect to de facto control, according to its questionnaire 
response, the management of Ispat Sidex controls Ispat Sidex, making 
all decisions concerning budget, sales and pricing subject to review by 
the company's ``council of administration'' (Ispat Sidex's board of 
directors). Sidex Trading is a subsidiary of Ispat Sidex and is 
controlled by its president who is appointed by the Ispat Sidex council 
of administration. Ispat Sidex has indicated that neither it nor Sidex 
Trading has any relationship with national, provincial, or local 
governments, including ministries or offices of those governments. 
Ispat Sidex reported the following: 1) It sets prices for merchandise 
sold to the United States based on negotiations with customers and 
these prices are not subject to review by any government organization; 
2) it does not coordinate with other exporters or producers to set the 
price or determine to which market companies sell subject merchandise; 
3) the export sales manager of Sidex Trading and Ispat Sidex's export 
manager have the authority to make export sales; 4) during its two-year 
term the Ispat Sidex council of administration approves the hiring of 
key officials, approves the disposition of assets over a certain level, 
and proposes the general budget; 5) the general assembly of 
shareholders elects the general director of Ispat Sidex, who in turn 
appoints the executive directors from the ranks of Ispat Sidex 
employees; 6) Ispat Sidex's executive directors have broad management 
responsibilities which include the approval and execution of contracts, 
payments to

[[Page 70647]]

suppliers, and other normal business operations; 7) Ispat Sidex and 
Sidex Trading control how their export revenues are used without 
restrictions from outside the companies; 8) Ispat Sidex and Sidex 
Trading hold the bank accounts in which their export revenues are 
deposited in their respective names; 9) Ispat Sidex's council of 
administration and Sidex Trading's president have access to their 
respective export revenue accounts; 10) Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading 
calculate their profits in accordance with international accounting 
standards and do not report export profits separately in their 
respective accounting records; 11) the Ispat Sidex general assembly of 
shareholders meets annually to review the previous year's results and 
vote on the following year's budget; 12) Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading 
can deposit their foreign currency earnings from sales of subject 
merchandise freely in their respective accounts and there are no 
requirements that the two companies sell any of their foreign currency 
earnings to the Romanian government.
    Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily 
determine that there was an absence of de facto government control over 
the export functions of Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading.

Export Price

    Because Ispat Sidex sold the subject merchandise through its 
subsidiary, Sidex Trading, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States prior to importation into the United States and constructed 
export price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we have used 
export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
    We calculated export price based on the price to unaffiliated 
purchasers. From this price, we deducted amounts for foreign inland 
freight and foreign brokerage and handling, pursuant to section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We valued these deductions using surrogate 
values. We selected Egypt as the primary surrogate country for the 
reasons explained in the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice. For 
the deductions of foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and 
handling, we used Egyptian surrogate values because these services were 
provided by Romanian companies and paid in Romanian lei. For certain 
U.S. sales for which it was appropriate, we also deducted international 
freight, U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties pursuant 
to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

    As discussed above, the Department is treating Romania as an NME 
country for the period November 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002. 
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the 
Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology 
if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the 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. Because 
information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using 
home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value, we 
calculated NV based on a factors-of-production methodology in 
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.408(c).
    Because we are using surrogate country factors-of-production prices 
to determine NV, section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that we use 
values from a market-economy (surrogate) country that is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of Romania and is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. We have determined that the 
Philippines, Ecuador, Egypt, Algeria, El Salvador, and the Dominican 
Republic are market-economy countries at a comparable level of economic 
development to that of Romania. See March 10, 2004, memorandum from Ron 
Lorentzen to Gary Taverman which is available in the CRU. In addition, 
we have found that Egypt is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise, i.e., hot-rolled steel. See Memorandum to File from Paul 
Stolz, dated November 29, 2004, which is on file in the CRU. We have 
chosen Egypt as the primary surrogate country. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(2), we selected, where possible, publicly available values 
from Egypt which were average non-export values, representative of a 
range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, 
product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Where we did not have reliable 
Egyptian values we used values for inputs from the Philippines, which 
also produces comparable products to the subject merchandise. Because 
some of the data were not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the 
data to the POR using the wholesale price index (WPI) published by the 
International Monetary Fund. Also, where we have relied upon import 
values, we have excluded imports from South Korea, Thailand, and 
Indonesia. The Department has found that these countries maintain 
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and that the 
existence of these subsidies provides sufficient reason to believe or 
suspect that export prices from these countries are distorted. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of 
China, 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 2004) as discussed in accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. Our practice of excluding 
subsidized prices has been upheld in China National Machinery Import 
and Export Corporation v. United States and the Timken Company, 293 F. 
Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), aff'd, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Material Inputs and Surrogate Values

    To the extent non-aberrational and contemporaneous data were 
available, we valued material inputs and packing material using imports 
statistics from the Egyptian import statistical data for 2002 from the 
Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics 
(CAPMAS), the Egyptian government's official statistical agency. For 
certain material inputs and packing material, we used import data for 
2002 from UN Commodity Trade Statistics for 2002 (U.N. Comtrade) or the 
World Trade Atlas (WTA). Where a material input was purchased in a 
market-economy currency from a market-economy supplier, we valued all 
of the input at the actual purchase price in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1). Consistent with 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, 69 FR 
54108 (September 7, 2004), to value limestone we used Filipino import 
statistics for 2001 from the WTA. For a complete analysis of surrogate 
values, see the November 29, 2004, memorandum, Factors of Production 
Valuation for Preliminary Results (Valuation Memorandum), available in 
the CRU.
    To value electricity we used the 2001 electricity rates for Egypt 
reported on the website of the International Trade Administration under 
``Trade Information Center.'' See www.web.ita.doc.gov/ticwebsite/neweb.nsf/. We based the value of natural gas on publically available 
Egyptian pricing data from an article dated July 18, 2002, published at 
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=3846. These data reflect 
market prices for natural gas in Egypt and were used in our most recent 
final results for seamless steel pipe from

[[Page 70648]]

Romania. See Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 
Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 54418 (September 17, 2003), and 
corresponding Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 2. We adjusted 
the value for natural gas for inflation. 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 
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 2002, International Labour Office (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 
5B: Wages in Manufacturing.
    We valued by-products using Egyptian import data for 2002 from 
CAPMAS and import data from U.N. Comtrade.
    We based our calculation of depreciation, selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit from the financial 
statements of Alexandria National Iron and Steel Works Company (AISC), 
an Egyptian producer of products identical to the subject merchandise. 
We were unable to calculate a specific non-depreciation overhead based 
on the AISC financial statements because the statements did not itemize 
expenses associated with non-depreciation overhead. Therefore, to 
estimate AISC's amount of non-depreciation overhead expense, we have 
calculated a company-specific non-depreciation overhead rate (non-
depreciation overhead amounts/cost of sales) from the financial 
statements of Ispat Annaba SPA, an Algerian producer of products 
identical to the subject merchandise. We selected the non-depreciation 
overhead rate from the Algerian company because it was the best 
available information on the record for the preliminary results. We 
will consider alternative surrogate non-depreciation overhead rates for 
the final results of this review.
    For these preliminary results, we multiplied AISC's total cost of 
goods sold by the non-depreciation overhead rate from Ispat Annaba 
(5.02 percent) to derive a value for AISC's non-depreciation overhead. 
We added the derived AISC non-depreciation overhead value to AISC's 
reported depreciation expense to obtain a value for total factory 
overhead. We subtracted this factory overhead amount from AISC's cost 
of goods sold to obtain a value for total material, labor, and energy 
expenses, and then we divided the total factory overhead by total 
material, labor, and energy expenses to calculate the factory overhead 
ratio we used in our calculation of normal value.
    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 used rail rates in Egypt, information also 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 we obtained from a 1999 letter from the 
Egyptian International House. We adjusted these rail rates for 
inflation. For barge transportation, we valued barge rates using an 
average of Egyptian rates from an Egyptian freight forwarder for steel 
coil and coal in bulk from Alexandria to Hulwan, Egypt, as adjusted for 
inflation.
    For brokerage and handling, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for 
inflation) provided by a trucking and shipping company located in 
Alexandria, Egypt.
    For additional analysis regarding the surrogate values we have 
applied, see the Valuation Memorandum available in the CRU.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists 
for the period November 1, 2002, through October 31, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ispat Sidex.........................................               33.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, the Department will disclose its 
calculations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held approximately 37 days after the publication of this 
notice. Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in 
the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may 
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of 
the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of 
authorities. Parties are also requested to submit such arguments, and 
public versions thereof, with an electronic version on a diskette.

Duty Absorption

    On January 23, 2004, United States Steel Corporation requested that 
the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed 
during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that, if 
requested, the Department will determine during an administrative 
review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order 
whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or 
exporter if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States 
through an affiliated importer. In this case, Ispat Sidex sold to the 
United States through an importer that is affiliated within the meaning 
of section 771(33) of the Act. Because this review was initiated two 
years after the publication of the antidumping duty order, we will make 
a duty-absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding. 
Accordingly, we have requested that Ispat Sidex provide information on 
duty absorption by December 6, 2004. Based on Ispat Sidex's response, 
we will make a preliminary determination on duty absorption and provide 
parties with an opportunity to comment prior to the completion of the 
final results of this review.

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for 
merchandise subject to this review. Ispat Sidex reported all of its 
sales during the POR as export-price sales. Ispat Sidex provided 
entered values for only a portion of these reported sales.
    With respect to export-price sales for which entered values were 
reported, for these preliminary results we divided the total dumping 
margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those 
reviewed sales for each applicable importer. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). For 
duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct the CBP 
to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of the applicable 
importer's/customer's entries during the review period.

[[Page 70649]]

    With respect to export-price sales for which entered values were 
not reported, for these preliminary results we divided the total 
dumping margins for each exporter's importer/customer by the total 
number of units the exporter sold to that importer/customer. For 
assessment amounts calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to 
assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of 
merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries during the 
review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication 
of the final results for all shipments of hot-rolled steel from Romania 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) 
for Ispat Sidex, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 
be the company-specific rate established in the final results of 
review; (2) for all other Romanian exporters, the cash deposit rate 
will be the Romania-wide rate, 88.62 percent, from the Amended 
Determination and Order; (3) for non-Romanian exporters of subject 
merchandise from Romania, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the Romanian supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the 
final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 29, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E4-3526 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S