[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53340-53344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4890]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-825]


Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request filed by domestic interested parties, 
the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review under the antidumping duty order on oil country 
tubular goods, other than drill pipe (``OCTG''), from Korea. This 
review covers the following producers: Husteel Co., Ltd. (``Husteel'') 
and SeAH Steel Corporation (``SeAH''). The period of review (``POR'') 
is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. The preliminary results are 
listed below in the section entitled ``Preliminary Results of Review.'' 
We preliminarily determine that both Husteel and SeAH made sales below 
normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between 
the constructed export price (``CEP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay or Nicholas Czajkowski, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
0780 or (202) 482-1395, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BACKGROUND

    On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea (60 FR 41058). On 
August 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of an opportunity to 
request an administrative review of the antidumping order on OCTG from 
Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 
69 FR 46496. On August 31, 2004, the Department received a properly 
filed, timely request for an administrative review from domestic 
producers, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, and Maverick 
Tube Corporations (``petitioners''). On September 22, 2004, the 
Department published a notice of initiation for this antidumping duty 
administrative review. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 69 FR 56745.
    On November 12, 2004, the Department issued questionnaires to 
Husteel and SeAH. Husteel and SeAH submitted Section A\1\ responses on 
January 5, 2005 and Section B-D responses on January 18, 2005. SeAH 
also submitted a Section E response on January 18, 2005. The Department 
issued supplemental questionnaires on February 29, 2005, March 24, 
2005, and June 6, 2005. Husteel and SeAH

[[Page 53341]]

submitted responses on March 7, 2005, April 22, 2005, and June 24, 
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of 
U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production 
of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the 
merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on 
further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 7, 2005, the Department published a notice extending the 
deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review from 
May 3, 2005, until August 31, 2005. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 10962.
    On November 30, 2004, and December 14, 2004, Husteel and SeAH, 
respectively submitted a request to the Department for a one-month 
adjustment to the cost reporting period in this review. Husteel and 
SeAH requested to report costs from July 1, 2003, through June 30, 
2004, rather than for the established period of review (``POR''), 
August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Husteel and SeAH claimed that 
the one-month shift in the reporting period would allow them to use 
their semi-annual financial information, which would ease their 
reporting burden and simplify accuracy and completeness tests for the 
Department. Both companies stated that the shift in cost period would 
not distort their reported costs. In Husteel's and SeAH's December 22, 
2004, submissions, each company provided further information regarding 
their request for the shift in cost period. In their December 2, 2004, 
and December 28, 2004, submissions, petitioners argued that a shift in 
the cost period would materially impact the antidumping analysis in 
this review.
    On January 5, 2005, the Department determined that a shift in cost 
reporting period would be inappropriate. See Letter to Husteel and SeAH 
regarding adjustment the cost reporting period dated January 5, 2005. 
The Department found that the difference in costs of primary inputs and 
in the cost of manufacturing between the two periods would have a 
significant effect on the results in this review. Therefore, the 
Department instructed Husteel and SeAH to provide cost information for 
the POR.

PERIOD OF REVIEW

    The POR for this administrative review is August 1, 2003, through 
July 31, 2004.

SCOPE OF THE ORDER

    The products covered by this order are OCTG, hollow steel products 
of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, 
of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), 
whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American 
Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API specifications, whether 
finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG 
products). This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 
10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject 
to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under sub-headings: 
7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 
7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 
7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 
7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 
7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 
7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 
7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 
7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 
7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 
7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 
7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 
7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS sub-headings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive of the scope of the order.

ANALYSIS

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), we considered all products manufactured by the 
respondents that are covered by the description contained in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section above and were sold in the comparison 
market during the POR, to be the foreign like product for purposes of 
determining the appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market 
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in 
Appendix V of the Department's November 12, 2004, antidumping 
questionnaire.

Date of Sale

    It is the Department's practice to use the invoice date as the date 
of sale. We may, however, use a date other than the invoice date if we 
are satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which 
the exporter or producer first establishes the material terms of sale. 
See 19 CFR section 351.401(i); see also Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27348-50 (May 19, 
1997).

Husteel

    U.S. Sales: For its U.S. sales, Husteel's customers contact Husteel 
USA, Husteel's U.S. affiliate, by phone and negotiate quantity and 
price. After production is complete, the merchandise is shipped from 
Korea and Husteel USA issues its invoice to the U.S. customer. As such, 
Husteel reported the date of sale to be the shipment date from Korea 
since that date always precedes Husteel USA's invoice date. The 
Department has found no information that indicates that another date 
better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were 
established. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily using shipment 
date as date of sale, as reported by Husteel.

SeAH

    U.S. Sales: For its U.S. sales, SeAH reported two channels of 
distribution: 1 - Inventory sales that were warehoused and, in most 
cases, further manufactured in the United States by Pusan Pipe America 
(``PPA''), SeAH's U.S. affiliate (U.S. Channel 1); and 2 - Constructed 
Export Price (CEP) sales made by PPA and shipped directly to the 
customer from Korea (U.S. Channel 2). In its submission, SeAH reported 
a different date of sale for each of its two channels of distribution. 
For sales in U.S. channel 1, SeAH reported the date of sale to be the 
date of the commercial invoice issued by PPA to the unaffiliated 
customer. For sales in U.S. channel 2, SeAH reported the date of sale 
to be the shipment date from Korea since this date precedes the date of 
PPA's commercial invoice to its unaffiliated U.S. customer. The 
Department has found no information that indicates that another date 
better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were 
established. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily using the 
commercial invoice date as date of sale for U.S. channel 1 and the 
shipment date as date of sale for U.S. channel 2, as reported by SeAH.
    Canadian Sales: For sales to Canada, the comparison market in this 
review (see ``Normal Value Comparisons'' below), PPA receives an 
inquiry from the customer by fax or telephone. Once SeAH and PPA agree 
on the price, the customer then sends a written purchase order to PPA. 
The merchandise is shipped and SeAH invoices PPA. PPA

[[Page 53342]]

then invoices the Canadian customer, pays SeAH, and then receives 
payment from the customer. As such, SeAH reported the shipment date 
from Korea since this date precedes the date of PPA's commercial 
invoice to its unaffiliated Canadian customer. The Department has found 
no information that indicates that another date better reflects the 
date on which the material terms of sale were established. Therefore, 
the Department is preliminarily using shipment date as date of sale, as 
reported by SeAH.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Husteel's or SeAH's sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared 
each company's CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, in accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.

Selection of Comparison Market

    The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by 
comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison-market sales to U.S. 
sales. A home market is not considered a viable comparison market if 
the aggregate quantity of sales of the foreign like product in that 
market amounts to less than five percent of the quantity of sales of 
subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. See section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.404. Husteel and SeAH each 
reported that the aggregate quantity of sales of the foreign like 
product in Korea during the POR amounted to less than five percent of 
the quantity of each company's sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.
    In Husteel's and SeAH's January 18, 2005, questionnaire responses, 
each company reported that the aggregate quantity of their sales of the 
foreign like product to the People's Republic of China (PRC) amounted 
to more than five percent of the total quantity of each company's sales 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, 
pursuant to section 771(18) of Act, the Department has determined that 
the PRC is a non-market economy country (NME). Consequently, the 
Department finds that the prices of Husteel's and SeAH's OCTG sales to 
the PRC are unrepresentative. As such, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act, the Department finds that such prices 
are inappropriate for use as a basis to establish normal value.
    In its January 5, 2005, questionnaire response, Husteel reported 
having no sales of OCTG to any other countries besides the United 
States and the PRC during the POR. Therefore, the Department has used 
constructed value (CV) for Husteel as the basis for NV for this review 
based on the cost of production (COP) (Section D) questionnaire 
responses submitted on January 18, 2005.
    In its January 5, 2005, questionnaire response, SeAH reported sales 
of OCTG to Canada and Myanmar during the POR. Since the quantity of 
foreign like product sold by SeAH into Myanmar was less than five 
percent of the quantity of subject merchandise sold in the United 
States, the Department determined that only Canada qualified as a 
viable comparison market based on the criterion established in section 
773(a)(1) of the Act. The Department calculated NV based on the 
information on sales to Canada provided in SeAH's April 22, 2005, 
questionnaire response. For U.S. sales for which a match with Canadian 
sales could not be found, the Department used CV as the basis for 
comparison based on the information provided by SeAH in Section D of 
its January 18, 2005, submission.

Normal Value

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    SeAH: Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. We added duty drawback and deducted 
movement expenses, third country packing expenses and third country 
direct selling expenses from the NV. We also made adjustments for CEP-
offset (see ``Level of Trade/CEP-offset'' section below), based on the 
sum of inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses. We 
made further adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of merchandise. Finally, the 
Department added U.S. packing expenses to derive the foreign unit price 
in dollars (``FUPDOL'') to use as the NV.

Constructed Value

    Husteel: We used CV as the basis for NV for all sales because 
Husteel had no viable comparison market in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 
773(e) of the Act. Materials, labor, and factory overhead were totaled 
to derive the cost of manufacturing. Interest, general and 
administrative (G&A) expenses, selling expenses, profit and U.S. 
packing expenses were then added to derive the CV. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we based profit and selling 
expenses on amounts derived from SeAH's financial statements. Finally, 
we deducted direct selling expenses from the CV price to derive the 
FUPDOL to use as the NV.
    SeAH: We used CV as the basis for NV for one sale because there 
were no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the 
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We 
calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. Materials, 
labor, and factory overhead were totaled to derive the cost of 
manufacturing. Interest, G&A expenses, selling expenses, profit, and 
U.S. packing expenses were then added to derive the CV. Profit was 
calculated based on the total value of sales and total cost of 
production provided by SeAH in its questionnaire response. Finally, we 
deducted credit expenses and U.S. direct selling expenses from CV to 
derive the FUPDOL to use as the NV.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in 
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and 
(d) of the Act. In Husteel's and SeAH's questionnaire responses, each 
company classified all of its export sales of OCTG to the United States 
as CEP sales.
    All of Husteel's sales are properly classified as CEP sales because 
they were made for the account of Husteel by Husteel USA. Husteel 
reported one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: ``produced to 
order'' sales, shipped directly from Korea to the unaffiliated U.S. 
customers. All of SeAH's sales are properly classified as CEP sales 
because they were made for the account of SeAH by PPA. SeAH reported 
two channels of distribution for its U.S. sales: (1) CEP sales of 
further manufactured merchandise from PPA's inventory and (2) CEP sales 
shipped directly to the U.S. customer from Korea.
    The Department recalculated SeAH's starting price taking into 
account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment 
discounts. Where applicable, the Department made deductions from the 
starting price for movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, 
foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, international freight, marine 
insurance and U.S. customs duties in accordance with section 772(c)(2) 
of the Act. See Memorandum from Nicholas Czajkowski, Case Analyst, to 
the File:

[[Page 53343]]

Analysis of Husteel Corporation (``Husteel'') for the Preliminary 
Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, 
Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea, and Memorandum from Nicholas 
Czajkowski, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of SeaH Steel 
Corporation (``SeAH'') for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill 
Pipe from Korea, dated August 31, 2005, on file in the CRU. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department also 
deducted U.S. direct selling expenses, including credit expense, 
packing expense, inventory carrying costs, profit and indirect selling 
expense. We also deducted the cost of further manufacturing, where 
applicable, for SeAH. Finally, we added duty drawback to the starting 
price to derive a net U.S. price to use as the CEP.

Level of Trade/CEP-offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determined NV based on sales made in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the U.S. sales. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. The 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the statute 
unambiguously requires Commerce to deduct the selling expenses set 
forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the CEP starting price prior to 
performing its LOT analysis. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3rd 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Consequently, the 
Department will continue to adjust the CEP, pursuant to section 772(d) 
of the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as articulated by the 
Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.412. When NV is based on CV, the 
NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and 
profit.
    To determine whether the comparison-market sales on which NV is 
based are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in 
the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of 
distribution between the producer and the first unaffiliated customer. 
If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and 
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based 
and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export 
transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 
773(a)(7) of the Act. Finally, if the data available is not sufficient 
to provide an appropriate basis to quantify a level-of-trade 
adjustment, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7) of the Act (the CEP-
offset provision).
    In the current review, SeAH reported one LOT in the Canadian market 
and two LOT in the United States. SeAH claimed that, once adjustments 
for PPA's activities for U.S. sales, pursuant to section 772(d) of the 
Act, are made, the LOT in both U.S. channels would be less advanced 
than the Canadian LOT. SeAH claimed that they cannot quantify a level-
of-trade adjustment, but that a CEP offset is warranted in this case. 
For this review, we obtained information from SeAH regarding the 
marketing stages involved in its selling activities for its reported 
U.S. and Canadian sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by the respondent for each channel of distribution 
it claimed. (See SeAH's January 18, 2005, and April 22, 2005, 
questionnaire responses).

Level of Trade in the Canadian Market

    SeAH reported one channel of distribution and one LOT in the 
Canadian market. All sales into the Canadian market were CEP sales made 
between PPA and the customer and shipped directly to the customer from 
Korea. As such, we preliminarily find that all of SeAH's sales in the 
Canadian market were made at one LOT.

Level of Trade in the U.S. Market

    As previously stated, SeAH reported two channels of distribution 
for its sales into the U.S. market, U.S. Channel 1 and U.S. Channel 2. 
SeAH also reported two LOT. We examined the selling functions performed 
by SeAH and/or PPA for each U.S. channel of distribution and found that 
there were significant differences with respect to the inventory and 
further manufacturing activities which PPA performed. In SeAH's U.S. 
Channel 1 sales, subject merchandise was inventoried and further 
manufactured by PPA in the United States before being sold to the 
unaffiliated customer. In SeAH's U.S. Channel 2 sales, subject 
merchandise was shipped directly from Korea to the unaffiliated 
customer. Therefore, we preliminarily find that SeAH made its U.S. 
sales at two different LOT.

Comparison of Levels of Trade Between Markets

    SeAH reported that PPA is involved in all aspects of the selling 
functions for both of channels of distribution in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses 
from the CEP prior to performing the LOT analysis.
    In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we deducted inventory 
costs, further manufacturing costs, freight and movement expenses, and 
selling and marketing expenses performed by PPA for SeAH's U.S. Channel 
1 sales. After deducting these expenses, we compared the Canadian LOT 
to the U.S. Channel 1 LOT. Based on our analysis, we find that the U.S. 
Channel 1 sales are at a less advanced LOT than the Canadian sales.
    In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we deducted freight 
and movement expenses, and selling and marketing expenses performed by 
PPA for SeAH's U.S. Channel 2 sales. After deducting these expenses, we 
compared the Canadian LOT to the U.S. Channel 2 LOT. Based on our 
analysis, we find that the U.S. Channel 2 sales are at a less advanced 
LOT than the Canadian sales.
    Therefore, since the sales in Canada are being made at a more 
advanced LOT than the sales to the United States, a LOT adjustment is 
appropriate for the Canadian sales in this review. However, since the 
data available is not sufficient to provide an appropriate basis for 
making a LOT adjustment, we made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance 
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). This offset 
is equal to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the 
comparison market not exceeding the amount of indirect selling expenses 
and commissions deducted from the U.S. price in accordance with section 
772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 
sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF REVIEW

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin 
exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel Corporation......................................       3.91%
Husteel Co., Ltd............................................      12.30%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department 
anticipates conducting a verification of Husteel and SeAH following the 
issuance of the preliminary results.

Duty Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on

[[Page 53344]]

all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department 
calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject 
merchandise for each respondent. The Department will issue appropriate 
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication 
of the final results of this review.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit rates will be effective 
with respect to all shipments of OCTG from Korea entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for 
Husteel and SeAH, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in 
the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be 
the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, 
or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this 
review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit 
rate shall be the all others rate established in the LTFV 
investigation, which is 12.17 percent. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, 60 FR 
33561 (June 28, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary 
results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be 
submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to 
be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing 
case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must 
be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public 
hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 
Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. 
Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will 
publish the final results of this administrative review, including the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, 
no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, 
unless extended. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).

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. These preliminary results of 
this administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4890 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S