[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39990-39995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-274-804]


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

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

[[Page 39991]]

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'') October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.
    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: July 12, 2005.

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 (``Wire Rod Orders''). On October 1, 
2004, we published in the Federal Register a Notice of Opportunity to 
Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 69 FR 58889.
    We received timely requests for review from petitioners\1\, and 
CIL\2\, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 19, 2004, 
we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review covering the period October 1, 2003, through 
September 30, 2004, naming CIL as the respondent. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 67701 
(November 19, 2004). On December 1, 2004, we sent a questionnaire to 
CIL.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc. (formerly Georgetown 
Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel 
Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North 
Star Steel Texas, Inc.
    \2\ On May 2, 2005, we preliminarily found that Mittal Steel 
Point Lisas Limited is the successor-in-interest to CIL. See Notice 
of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 22634.
    \3\ 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 Assembly Performed in the 
United States
    CIL submitted its responses to sections A through D of the 
Department's questionnaire on January 31, 2005, and sections C and E 
relating to Walker Wire on February 28, 2005. On April 27, 2005, the 
petitioners submitted comments on CIL's questionnaire response.
    On March 22, 2005, the Department issued a section A-E supplemental 
questionnaire to CIL. We received the response to the supplemental 
questionnaire on April 20, 2005. On May 5, 2005, the Department issued 
a second section A-E supplemental questionnaire to CIL. We received the 
response to the second supplemental questionnaire on May 25, 2005.
    On June 6, 2005, the petitioners requested that the Department 
issue additional questions with regard to CIL's claimed level of trade 
(``LOT'') and request for a CEP Offset.
    On June 14, 2005, the Department received a reconciliation of CIL's 
home market and U.S. sales database to its income statements.

Scope of the Order

    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

[[Page 39992]]

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. Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 
Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68 
FR 64079 (November 12, 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 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.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), all products produced by the respondent covered 
by the description in the Scope of the Order 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.

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 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 and increased the prices to reflect billing 
adjustments and surcharges.
    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.
    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 further manufacturing). 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. 
Furthermore, we recalculated INA's credit expense and inventory 
carrying costs as we did in the final results of the first 
administrative review. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Trinidad and Tobago, 70 FR 12648 (March 15, 2005) (``First Review'') 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.

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

[[Page 39993]]

    The Department found and disregarded home market sales that were 
made below the cost of production (``COP'') in the most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding in which CIL participated. See 
First Review. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have 
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 COP. Therefore, we initiated 
a cost investigation of the respondent.
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. CIL reported cost 
databases based on generally accepted accounting principles (``GAAP'') 
in Trinidad and Tobago and U.S. GAAP. Pursuant to section 773(f)(1)(A) 
of the Act, the Department relied on CIL's cost database which was 
based on CIL's audited financial statements prepared in accordance with 
their home country GAAP (i.e., IAS) as submitted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the final determination of the investigation and final 
results of the first administrative review, we used cost databases 
based on CIL's home market GAAP. 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) and 
First Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CIL requested that we use control number-specific 
costs for two six-month cost periods (October 2003 through March 2004 
and April 2004 through September 2004) to account for the increase in 
raw material (i.e., iron ore and various alloys used in the production 
of wire rod) prices during the POR. CIL based its request, in its 
January 31, 2005, section D response, on the fact that the cost of 
certain inputs increased substantially.
    Our normal practice for a respondent in a country that is not 
experiencing high inflation is to calculate a single weighted-average 
cost for the entire POR except in unusual cases where this preferred 
method would not yield an appropriate comparison in the margin 
calculation. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Order: Brass Sheet and Strip 
from the Netherlands, 64 FR 48760 (September 8, 1999) citing Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; 64 FR 30664, 30676 (June 
8, 1999) (concluding that weighted-average costs for two periods were 
permissible where major declines in currency valuations distorted the 
margin calculations); Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 
8909, 8925 (February 23, 1998) (calculating quarterly weighted-average 
costs due to a significant and consistent price and cost decline in the 
market); Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from the 
Republic of Korea; 58 FR 15467, 15476 (March 23, 1993) (determining 
that the Department may use quarterly weighted-average costs where 
there exists a consistent downward trend in both U.S. and home market 
prices during the period); Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Erasable Programable Read Only Memories from Japan; 51 FR 
39680, 39682 (October 30, 1986) (finding that significant changes in 
the COP during a short period of time due to technological advancements 
and changes in production process justified the use of quarterly 
weighted-average costs).
    We have reviewed the information on the record. CIL has not 
demonstrated that the raw material price increases were significant 
and/or consistent and would distort the margin calculation. Therefore, 
we followed our normal practice of calculating a single weighted-
average cost for the POR.
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 
were 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 
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, and packing 
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.
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. Further, 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 July 
5, 2005, on file in the Central Records Unit, room B099 of the main 
Department building, for our calculation methodology and results.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
    We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for 
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 adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly 
linked to sales transactions). 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 19 CFR 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. 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

[[Page 39994]]

sales in the comparison market at the same 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 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, in both markets CIL provided 
services such as: strategic and economic planning, sales forecasting, 
sales force development, solicitation of orders, technical advice, 
price negotiation, processing purchase orders, invoicing, extending 
credit, managing accounts receivable, and making arrangements for 
warranties related to sales.
    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. 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 the sales in its home 
market. Therefore, we have determined that CIL's home market sales are 
made at a more advanced stage of the marketing process than the CEP 
sales to the affiliates and therefore are at a different LOT within the 
meaning of 19 CFR 351.412.
    Accordingly, when we compared CEP sales to home market sales, we 
examined whether an LOT adjustment may be appropriate. As CIL sold at 
only one LOT in the home market, there is no basis to determine that 
there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs. 
Further, we do not have information which would allow us to examine 
pricing patterns of CIL's sales of other similar products, and there 
are no other respondents or record evidence on which such an analysis 
could be based.
    Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for 
making an LOT adjustment and the LOT of CIL's home market sales is at a 
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 section 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 weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 
1, 2003, through September 30, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caribbean Ispat Limited.............................                6.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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 the case 
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, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rate

    The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. 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

[[Page 39995]]

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 rate 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 11.40 
percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. 
See Wire Rod Orders.
    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 increase the 
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of 
antidumping duties reimbursed.
    These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued 
and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 
the Act.

    Dated: July 5, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-3690 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S