[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5811-5815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-428-830


Stainless Steel Bar From Germany: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from 
Germany. The period of review is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 
2005. This review covers imports of stainless steel bar from one 
producer/exporter.
    We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise sold 
by BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH 
Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, and BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH have been made at 
less than normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on 
these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later 
than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Andrew Smith, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0182 or (202) 482-1276, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published an antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from 
Germany. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from 
Germany, 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002) (``LTFV Final''). On October 10, 
2003, the Department published an amended antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel bar from Germany. See Notice of Amended Antidumping 
Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, 
and the United Kingdom, 68 FR 58660 (October 10, 2003).
    On March 1, 2005, the Department published its Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 9918 (March 1, 
2005). On March 31, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 
Department received a timely request for review from BGH Edelstahl 
Freital GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, 
and BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (collectively ``BGH''), and from 
Stahlwerke Ergste Westig GmbH/Ergste Westig South Carolina (``SEW''). 
On March 31, 2005, Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty 
Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., and Electralloy Corp. 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of BGH.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on April 22, 
2005. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 20862 (April 22, 2005). The period of 
review (``POR'') is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005.
    Sections A, B, C, and D of the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire were sent to BGH on April 25, 2005. Sections A, B, and C 
of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire were sent to SEW on 
April 25, 2005.
    On May 9, 2005, BGH requested that it be relieved from the 
requirement to report affiliated party resales because sales of the 
foreign like product to affiliated parties during the POR constituted 
less than five percent of total sales of the foreign like product. On 
May 25, 2005, we granted BGH's request in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.403(d). See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, ``Reporting of BGH's Home 
Market Sales by an Affiliated Party,'' dated May 25, 2005, which is in 
the Department's Central Records Unit, located in Room B-099 of the 
main Department building (``CRU'').
    We received timely responses to the Department's antidumping duty 
questionnaire from BGH on May 23 and June 22, 2005. We received a 
timely response to Section A of the Department's antidumping duty

[[Page 5812]]

questionnaire from SEW on May 23, 2005.
    On June 14, 2005, SEW timely withdrew its request for an 
administrative review. SEW's request was the only request for an 
administrative review of SEW's U.S. sales. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), the Department rescinded its antidumping administrative 
review of SEW. See Notice of Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany, 70 FR 37084 
(June 28, 2005).
    We issued a supplemental questionnaire to BGH on July 6, 2005. We 
received a response from BGH on August 2, 2005. On October 20, 2005, we 
determined that the four production companies comprising BGH should be 
considered one entity for the purposes of this proceeding. See 
Memorandum to Gary Taverman, ``Third Antidumping Administrative Review 
of Stainless Steel Bar from Germany,'' dated October 20, 2005, which is 
on file in the Department's CRU. We issued an additional supplemental 
questionnaire to BGH on November 2 and received a timely response from 
BGH on November 29, 2005. We also issued supplemental questionnaires to 
BGH on November 22, 2005, January 11, and January 20, 2006. We received 
timely responses from BGH on December 20, 2005, January 23, and January 
24, 2006, respectively.

Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of this order, the term ``stainless steel bar'' 
includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been 
either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise 
cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along 
their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, 
rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other 
convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless 
steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether 
produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, 
and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other 
deformations produced during the rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or 
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 
least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless 
steel sheet, strip or plate, wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do 
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, 
shapes and sections.
    The stainless steel bar subject to this review is currently 
classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar by BGH to the 
United States were made at less than normal value (``NV''), we compared 
the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), we compared the EPs of individual U.S. 
transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product, 
where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as 
discussed in the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by BGH covered by the description in the ``Scope of 
the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order 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 BGH's 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume 
of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further details, see 
the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice.)
    We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison market 
within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three 
months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in 
the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade. In making product comparisons, consistent 
with the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany, 67 FR 3159 (January 23, 2002) 
and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany, 67 
FR 10382 (March 7, 2002) (collectively ``LTFV Final''), we matched 
foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by 
BGH in the following order: general type of finish; grade; remelting 
process; type of final finishing operation; shape; and size.

Export Price

    We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer 
outside the United States and because constructed export price 
methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed ex-
works, cost, insurance and freight, or delivered price to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We calculated the correct starting 
price by accounting for billing adjustments and early payment 
discounts. We also made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
deductions included foreign inland freight, international freight, 
brokerage and handling, U.S. other transportation expense, country of 
manufacture inland insurance, U.S. inland insurance, U.S. customs 
duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing 
fees), and U.S. inland freight, where applicable.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV 
(i.e., whether the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales), we compared BGH's volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2). Because BGH's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 
subject

[[Page 5813]]

merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    The Department's practice with respect to the use of home market 
sales to affiliated parties for NV is to determine whether such sales 
are at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). BGH made sales in 
the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. To test 
whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we 
compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, 
discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on 
average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same 
or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined 
that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course 
of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with the 
Department's practice, we only included in our margin analysis those 
sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's length (and which 
passed the cost test described below).

C. Cost of Production

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (``COP'') 
in the last completed review for BGH (see Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from 
Germany, 70 FR 19419 (April 13, 2005)), we had reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under 
consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been 
made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 
of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
requested that BGH respond to section D, the cost of production/
constructed value section of the questionnaire.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.

1. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of BGH's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative 
expenses (``G&A''), and interest expenses. We relied on the COP 
information provided by BGH, except in the following instances.
    According to section 773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.407(b) 
(``Major Input Rule''), the Secretary normally will determine the value 
of a major input purchased from an affiliated person based on the 
higher of: (1) the price paid by the exporter or producer to the 
affiliated person for the major input; (2) the amount usually reflected 
in sales of the major input in the market under consideration; or (3) 
the cost to the affiliated person of producing the major input. In its 
June 22, 2005, Section D response at Exhibit D-4, BGH reported that it 
purchases scrap and alloy inputs from affiliated trading companies.
    We have not applied the Major Input Rule to BGH's scrap or alloy 
purchases because the purchases were from affiliated trading companies 
that did not produce the inputs that they supplied to BGH. Instead, we 
have applied the valuation rules described in section 773(f)(2) of the 
Act, the ``Transactions Disregarded Rule.'' Under the Transactions 
Disregarded Rule, a transaction directly or indirectly between 
affiliated persons may be disregarded if, in the case of any element of 
value required to be considered, the amount representing that element 
does not fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of 
merchandise under consideration in the market under consideration.
    We applied the Transactions Disregarded Rule to BGH's scrap and 
alloy input purchases from affiliated trading companies during the POR, 
comparing the transfer prices to BGH's third-party purchase prices, as 
provided in Exhibit SD-19 of the November 29, 2005, supplemental 
Section D questionnaire response. As a result of this comparison, we 
have determined that BGH received affiliated party inputs at less than 
market value prices. Therefore, we made an upward adjustment to BGH's 
cost of manufacturing, for all products, for affiliated party 
transactions occurring at less than market value in accordance with 
section 773(f)(2) of the Act.
    In addition, BGH reported unique G&A expense ratios for each 
production company, and weight-averaged those ratios to create a single 
BGH G&A expense ratio for all CONNUMs. We calculated CONNUM-specific 
G&A expenses by weighting the G&A ratios for each production company by 
the production of each CONNUM at each facility. In our revised G&A 
ratios, we also included the administrative expenses incurred by BGH's 
parent company, Boschgotthardshutte O. Breyer Gmbh (``BOB''), which 
were not allocable to BOB's cost of leasing fixed assets. For further 
explanation about these cost adjustments, see Memorandum from Case 
Accountant to Neal Halper, Director, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Determination - BGH Group, Inc.,'' dated January 30, 2006.

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted, weighted-
average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product during 
the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether the sales prices were below the COP. The prices were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, 
commissions, discounts, rebates and indirect selling expenses. In 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below 
the COP, we examined, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the 
Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time 
in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which did not permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

3. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices 
below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we determine that in such instances the below cost sales represent 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also 
determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP and, 
thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time 
in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices 
that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1).

D. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on

[[Page 5814]]

sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as 
the EP transaction or constructed export price (``CEP'') transaction. 
The LOT in the comparison market is the LOT of the starting-price sales 
in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the LOT of the 
sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. With respect to 
U.S. price for EP transactions, the LOT is also that of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For 
CEP, the LOT is that of the constructed sale from the exporter to the 
importer. To determine whether comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT from U.S. sales, we examined 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, the Department makes 
an LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
For CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. We analyze whether different selling activities 
are performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for 
which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly 
or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. Under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or downward 
adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference in LOT involves the 
performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to 
affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price 
differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV 
is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not 
provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT adjustment, we reduce 
NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign 
comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more 
than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP 
sales. See section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). 
In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the 
LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 
1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions 
and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the 
functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000).
    BGH reported four channels of distribution in the home market. 
Channels 1 and 2 were made-to-order sales to distributors and end-
users, respectively. Channels 3 and 4 were sales from inventory to 
distributors and end-users, respectively. We examined the selling 
functions reported by BGH for each of these channels and found that 
made-to-order sales in channels 1 and 2 were similar with respect to 
sales process, freight services, inventory maintenance, and warranty 
service. We also found that because channel 3 sales were made from 
inventory, they differed from channel 1 and 2 made-to-order sales with 
respect to inventory services, but that they were otherwise similar to 
channels 1 and 2 with respect to sales process, freight services, and 
warranty service. Therefore, we found that channels of distribution 1, 
2 and 3 were sufficiently similar to constitute a distinct level of 
trade (LOTH 1).
    BGH included in distribution channel 4 any sale made from inventory 
in which ``other revenue'' was reported on the invoice. BGH considered 
these channel 4 sales to be a separate LOT because of service center 
selling functions provided for bar sold through this channel. ``Other 
revenue'' is a separate charge appearing on the invoice for special 
services performed by the inventory warehouse, such as cutting, 
grinding, special finishing and additional testing. We agree with BGH 
that the ``other revenue'' charged on certain sales is indicative of 
service center functions and that these sales are distinct from LOTH 1 
with respect to sales process and inventory maintenance, and as such 
constitute a separate level of trade, LOTH 2.
    BGH reported EP sales through two channels of distribution, made-
to-order sales to distributors (channel 1) and warehouse inventory 
sales to distributors (channel 3). We examined the chain of 
distribution and the selling activities associated with sales through 
these channels and found them to be similar with respect to sales 
process, freight services, and warranty service. Therefore, we 
determine that the two EP channels of distribution constitute a single 
LOT (LOTU 1).
    The EP LOT differed considerably from LOTH 2 with respect to sales 
process and warehousing/inventory maintenance. However, the EP LOT is 
similar to LOTH 1 with respect to sales process, freight services, 
warehouse/inventory maintenance and warranty service. Consequently, we 
matched the EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market (LOTH 
1). Where no matches at the same LOT were possible, we matched to sales 
in LOTH 2 and we made a LOT adjustment. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on the ex-works or delivered price to 
unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we 
determined to be at arm's length. We identified the correct starting 
price by accounting for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, 
other discounts, rebates and interest revenue. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for inland 
freight and inland insurance. We also made adjustments, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the 
home market or on U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in 
one market but not in the other (the commission offset).
    Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs 
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.411. In addition, where appropriate, we made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales (credit 
expenses), and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses). 
Where payment dates were unreported, we recalculated the credit 
expenses using the last date of new information received in place of 
actual date of payment. We deducted home market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act.
    Finally, where appropriate, we made an adjustment for differences 
in LOT under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(b)-(e).

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily find that the following dumping margin exists for 
the period March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005.

[[Page 5815]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BGH.................................................        1.06 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each 
importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results 
of this administrative review, if any importer (or customer)-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. To determine whether the duty assessment rates 
covering the period were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement 
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or 
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the entered value of the sales to that importer 
(or customer).
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of 
this review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of stainless steel bar from Germany entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate listed above for each 
specific company will be the rate established in the final results of 
this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore 
de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation, but 
the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
review, the cash deposit rate will be 16.96 percent, the ``all others'' 
rate established in the LTFV Final.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be 37 days 
after the publication of this notice, or the first business day 
thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing 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 proceeding are requested to submit with each argument 
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument 
with an electronic version included.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Notification to Importers

    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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 27, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-1508 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S