[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67665-67668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 
Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 
and Determination To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars 
(rebar) from Turkey (70 FR 23990). This review covers four producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period 
of review (POR) is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. We are 
rescinding the review with respect to 18 companies because they had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
In addition, we have determined to revoke the antidumping duty order 
with respect to an additional exporter, ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve 
Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS).
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled 
``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, Office 
of AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0656 and (202) 482-0498, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This review covers the following four producers/exporters: 
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret (collectively 
``Colakoglu''); Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici 
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. 
(collectively ``Diler''); Habas Tibbi ve Sinai Gazlar Istihsal 
Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and ICDAS.
    On May 6, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on rebar from Turkey. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke 
in Part, 70 FR 23990 (May 6, 2005) (Preliminary Results).
    Prior to the preliminary results, the following companies informed 
the Department that they had no shipments to the United States during 
the POR: Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas); Cemtas Celik 
Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas); Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve 
Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan); Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 
(Ege Celik); Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik San A.S. 
(collectively ``Ekinciler''); Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. 
(Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir); Kaptan Demir Celik 
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan); Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi 
Turk A.S. (Metas); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan 
Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan); Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri 
A.S. (Sivas); and Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali). We 
reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and confirmed 
that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these 
companies. We also confirmed with CBP data that Ege Metal Demir Celik 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal); Kardemir--Karabuk Demir Celik 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk); Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman); 
Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum); and Ucel 
Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel) did not have entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding 
our review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal, 
Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas, 
Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. For further discussion, see 
the ``Partial

[[Page 67666]]

Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. 
In June and July 2005, we received case briefs from the petitioners 
(i.e., Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI 
Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation), Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, and 
rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and 
ICDAS.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel 
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This 
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail 
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round 
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, 
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal, 
Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas, 
Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel had no shipments and/or 
entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We 
have confirmed this with CBP data. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are 
rescinding our review with respect to these companies. See, e.g., 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results, 
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review in Part, and 
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004) 
(2002-2003 Rebar Final).

Determination To Revoke Order, in Part

    The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty 
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act). While Congress has not specified the 
procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the 
Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described 
in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that a company 
requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) A certification 
that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than 
normal value (NV) in the current review period and that the company 
will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a 
certification that the company sold commercial quantities of the 
subject merchandise to the United States in each of the three years 
forming the basis of the request; and (3) an agreement to immediate 
reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less 
than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the 
Department will consider: (1) Whether the company in question has sold 
subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three 
consecutive years; (2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its 
immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at 
less than NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the 
antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19 
CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). See Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 67 FR 69719, 69720 (Nov. 19, 
2002).
    We have determined that the request from ICDAS meets all of the 
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria of 
subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show 
that ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV during the current review 
period. In addition, ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV in the two 
previous administrative reviews in which it was involved (i.e., ICDAS's 
dumping margin was zero or de minimis). See 2002-2003 Rebar Final and 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and 
Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 68 FR 53127 (Sept. 9, 2003). Also, 
we find that application of the antidumping duty order to ICDAS is no 
longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) the company had zero or 
de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; 
(2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if 
the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; 
and (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise 
necessary to offset dumping. For further discussion, see Comment 18 of 
the accompanying ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memo) 
from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, dated November 2, 2005. Therefore, we find that 
ICDAS qualifies for revocation of the antidumping duty order on rebar 
under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Accordingly, we are revoking the order with 
respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS.

Effective Date of Revocation

    This revocation applies to all entries of subject merchandise that 
are produced and exported by ICDAS, and are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2004. The Department 
will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all such entries and 
will instruct CBP to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department 
will further instruct CBP to refund with interest any cash deposits on 
entries made on or after April 1, 2004.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether the respondents participating in the 
review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the 
POR at prices below their costs of production (COP) within the meaning
    of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for 
these final results following the same methodology as in the 
Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the Decision Memo.
    We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given 
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the 
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these 
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. See section 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
    Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that 
Colakoglu, Diler, Habas and ICDAS made below-cost sales not in the 
ordinary course of trade.

[[Page 67667]]

 Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used 
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review and to which we have responded are listed in the 
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is 
adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all 
issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in 
this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, 
room B-099, of the main Department building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain 
changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the 
relevant sections of the Decision Memo.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages 
exist for the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/producer/exporter              Margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu...........................................                0.00
Diler...............................................                0.31
Habas...............................................               26.07
ICDAS...............................................                0.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
for all of Habas's sales and certain of ICDAS's sales and because we 
have the reported entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated 
importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total 
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the 
total entered value of those sales.
    Regarding all of Colakoglu's and Diler's sales, as well as certain 
of ICDAS's sales, we note that these companies did not report the 
entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in 
question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 
sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de 
minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based 
on the export prices.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because we have revoked the order with respect to subject 
merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS, we will order CBP to 
terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 
1, 2004, and to refund all cash deposits collected.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of rebar from Turkey (except shipments from ICDAS 
noted above) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of 
the Act: 1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be 
the rates indicated above (except for ICDAS and Diler, whose weighted-
average margins are de minimis, where no cash deposit will be 
required); 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer 
of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the all 
others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 2, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

1. Cost Averaging Periods for Habas and ICDAS
2. Depreciation Expenses
3. Matching Criteria
4. Exchange Rates
5. Universe of Sales
6. Date of Sale for Habas and ICDAS
7. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Results

Company-Specific Issues

8. Cost of Billets for Colakoglu
9. Financing Expenses for Colakoglu
10. Movement Expenses Provided by an Affiliate of Diler
11. Affiliated Party Billet Purchases for Diler
12. Edge and Defective Rebar Offsets to Cost of Manufacturing (COM) for 
Diler
13. Offsets to General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses for Diler
14. Denominator of the G&A and Interest Expense Calculations for Diler
15. Interest Expense Calculation for Diler
16. Omitted Costs for Diler
17. Offsets to G&A Expenses for Habas
18. Revocation for ICDAS
19. Affiliated Party Sales in ICDAS's Home Market
20. Arm's-Length Test for ICDAS
21. Level of Trade (LOT) for ICDAS
22. Whether to Treat ICDAS's U.S. Sales as Export Price (EP) or 
Constructed Export Price (CEP) Sales

[[Page 67668]]

23. Collapsing Issue for ICDAS
24. Startup Adjustment for ICDAS
25. Gain on Sale of Ship for ICDAS
26. Calculation of G&A Expenses for ICDAS
27. Exchange Rate Gains for ICDAS
[FR Doc. 05-22242 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S