[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26043-26047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-489-501)


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the respondent, Toscelik Profil ve 
Sac Endustrisi A.S., Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S., and its affiliated 
export trading company, Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., (collectively, 
``Toscelik''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is 
conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube (``welded pipe and tube'') 
from Turkey. This review covers one producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise, Toscelik. We preliminarily determine that Toscelik

[[Page 26044]]

did not make 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 export price (``EP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho or George McMahon, at 
(202) 482-5075, or (202) 482-1167, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube 
from Turkey, 51 FR 17784 (May 15, 1986). On May 2, 2005, the Department 
published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 22631 (May 2, 2005). On May 31, 2005, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.214 and section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), and of the antidumping order on welded carbon 
steel pipe and tube from Turkey, Toscelik requested a new shipper 
review.
    On June 30, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of antidumping duty new shipper review for the period May 1, 2004, 
through April 30, 2005. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube 
from Turkey: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review for the Period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005, 70 FR 39487 
(June 30, 2005). On December 5, 2005, the Department extended the 
deadline for the preliminary results until no later than April 26, 
2006. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey: 
Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Review, 70 FR 72426 (December 5, 2005).
    On July 5, 2005, the Department sent an antidumping duty 
administrative review questionnaire for Sections A-C to Toscelik.\1\ 
The Department received Toscelik's Section A-C questionnaire response 
on August 29, 2005. On September 19, 2005, domestic interested parties 
\2\ submitted an allegation that Toscelik's home market sales were made 
at prices below the cost of production (``COP''). The Department 
analyzed the information referenced in petitioners' letter of September 
19, 2005, and determined that the COP allegation was company-specific, 
employed a reasonable methodology, provided evidence of below-cost 
sales, and included models which are representative of the broader 
range of pipe and tube sold by Toscelik. Therefore, we determined that 
the petitioners' COP allegation provided a reasonable basis to initiate 
a new shipper COP review. See Memorandum from LaVonne Clark to Neal 
Halper entitled ``Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the COP for 
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.'' (``COP Memo''), dated 
September 28, 2005, on file in Import Administration's Central Records 
Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (``CRU'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The questionnaire consists of sections A (general 
information), B (sales in the home market or to third countries), C 
(sales to the United States), D (cost of production/constructed 
value), and E (cost of further manufacturing or assembly performed 
in the United States).
    \2\ The domestic interested parties are Allied Tube and Conduit 
Corp., IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Sharon Tube Company and Wheatland Tube 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the Department issued a Section D questionnaire to 
Toscelik on September 28, 2005. The Department granted an extension to 
Toscelik and subsequently received Toscelik's Section D questionnaire 
response on November 9, 2005. The Department subsequently issued three 
supplemental questionnaires regarding Sections A-C of the Department's 
initial questionnaire to Toscelik on October 7, 2005, January 6, 2006, 
and February 10, 2006, respectively. The Department also issued two 
supplemental questionnaires regarding Section D of the Department's 
initial questionnaire on November 30, 2005, and January 19, 2006, 
respectively. The Department received Toscelik's three supplemental 
questionnaire responses for Sections A-C on November 4, 2005, February 
6, 2006, and February 21, 2006, respectively. The Department received 
Toscelik's two supplemental questionnaire responses for Section D on 
December 7, 2005, and February 2, 2006, respectively. The Department 
conducted a verification of Toscelik's cost of production from March 6 
through March 10, 2006, and a verification of Toscelik's sales from 
March 13 through March 17, 2006.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 
406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (black, or galvanized, painted), or end 
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and 
tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be 
called structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. 
Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance 
of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in 
plumbing and heating systems, air conditioner units, automatic 
sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be 
used for light
    load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, 
and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.
    The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or 
those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard 
pipe applications. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outlined above are included in the scope of this order, 
except for line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified the 
information provided by Toscelik. We used standard verification 
procedures, including an examination of the relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are detailed in the 
company-specific verification report placed in the case file in the 
CRU. See Toscelik's Sales Verification Report and Toscelik's Cost 
Verification Report, dated April 26, 2006, and Calculation Memorandum, 
dated April 26, 2006, in the CRU.

Product Comparisons

    We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and

[[Page 26045]]

Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales 
of products sold in the United States and comparison market that were 
identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) Grade; (2) 
nominal pipe size; (3) wall thickness; (4) surface finish; and (5) end 
finish. When there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home 
market to compare with the U.S. sale, we compared the U.S. sale with 
the most similar merchandise based on the characteristics listed above 
in the order of priority listed.

Export Price

    Toscelik sold subject merchandise directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based 
on the record facts of this review. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, we applied the Department's EP methodology 
for all of Toscelik's sales.
    We calculated EP using, as starting price, the packed, delivered 
price to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made the following deductions 
from the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate: foreign 
inland freight from the mill to warehouse to port, foreign brokerage 
and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and other 
related charges. In addition, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act, we added duty drawback to the starting price, having found 
preliminarily that such an adjustment was warranted under the standard 
two-prong test. See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 374 
F. Supp 2d 1257 (CIT May 12, 2005).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market
    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 Toscelik's volume of home-market sales of the foreign like 
product to its respective volume of the U.S. sale of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 
Toscelik's aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like 
product was greater than five percent of its respective aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we 
determined that Toscelik's home market was viable. We calculated NV as 
noted in the ``Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices'' 
and ``Calculation of NV Based on Constructed Value'' sections of this 
notice.
B. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis
    As referenced in the background section, the Department conducted 
an analysis of the domestic interested parties' allegation that 
Toscelik's home market sales were made below the COP. We found that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Toscelik's 
sales of the foreign like product in the HM were made at prices below 
their respective COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act, we initiated a new shipper COP review to determine whether 
Toscelik's sales were made at prices below their COP. See COP Memo.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of Toscelik's costs of materials and fabrication 
employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, 
and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and the cost of all expenses 
incidental to packing and preparing the foreign like product for 
shipment. We relied on the COP data submitted by Toscelik except for 
the following adjustments. We adjusted Toscelik's fixed overhead 
(``FOH'') costs to differentiate each product's depreciation expenses 
based on the equipment and machinery used to manufacture the product 
(i.e., the hydro-static testing, galvanizing, and threading processes). 
For each reported product, we determined the applicable manufacturing 
processes (e.g., galvanizing process is applicable to all galvanized 
products) and adjusted that product's FOH accordingly. We also 
increased the reported product-specific cost of manufacturing (``COM'') 
(i.e., materials and fabrication) to account for an inflation 
adjustment made to finished goods inventory at the end of fiscal year 
(``FY'') 2004. We calculated this adjustment independently of the FOH 
adjustment. Finally, we revised Toscelik's reported general and 
administrative (``G&A'') expense ratio to exclude the G&A expenses of 
Toscelik's affiliated resellers and include other ordinary expenses and 
losses incurred by Toscelik in FY 2004. We then applied this ratio to 
the product-specific COM plus packing to determine the product-specific 
G&A expenses.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales 
of the foreign like product as required by section 773(b) of the Act, 
in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below 
the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, 
discounts, packing, and direct selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' We found that, for certain products, more 
than 20 percent of Toscelik's home-market sales were sold at prices 
below the COP. Further, we found that the prices for these sales did 
not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
C. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices
    For Toscelik, for those comparison products for which there were 
sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on home-market prices. We 
were able to match the U.S. sale to contemporaneous sales, made in the 
ordinary course of trade, of a similar foreign like product, based on 
the product matching characteristics. For Toscelik, we calculated NV 
based on ex-works mill/warehouse to unaffiliated customers, or prices 
to affiliated customers, which were determined to be at arm's length 
(see discussion below regarding these sales). We made deductions, where 
appropriate, from the starting price for discounts, rebates, inland 
freight, and pre-sale warehouse expense. Additionally, we added billing 
adjustments because these adjustments were reported as negative values 
in Toscelik's home market database. In accordance with section 
773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs.

Arm's-Length Sales

    We included in our analysis Toscelik's home-market sales to 
affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales were made 
at

[[Page 26046]]

arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to prices at which 
Toscelik sold identical merchandise to their unaffiliated customers. 
Toscelik's sales to affiliates constituted less than five percent of 
overall home-market sales. 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 
that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 
percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold 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).

Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), at 829-831 (see H.R. Doc. No. 316, 
103d Cong., 2d Sess. 829-831 (1994)), to the extent practicable, the 
Department calculates NV based on sales at the same level of trade 
(``LOT'') as U.S. sales, either EP or CEP. When the Department is 
unable to find sale(s) in the comparison market at the same LOT as the 
U.S. sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign 
markets at different LOTs. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price of 
sales in the home market. To determine whether home-market sales are at 
a different LOT than U.S. sales, 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 differences affect 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 pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In implementing these principles, we examined information from 
Toscelik regarding the marketing stages involved in the reported home-
market and EP sales, including a description of the selling activities 
performed for each channel of distribution. In the home market, 
Toscelik reported one LOT and two channels of distribution. In the U.S. 
market, Toscelik reported one LOT and one channel of distribution. We 
found that there is very little distinction in the selling functions 
performed for each channel of distribution, and therefore, we determine 
there is one LOT for the home market and the U.S. market.
    For home-market sales, we found that Toscelik Profil ve Sac A.S. 
(``Toscelik Profil''), the producer of subject merchandise, sells 
directly to distributors and Tosyali Metal Ticaret A.S. (``Tosyali 
Metal,'' Toscelik Profil's domestic trading partner), sells to 
retailers and end-users. In both instances, the sales are made mill-
direct, ex-works without the use of a selling agent. In some cases, 
Tosyali Metal arranged for freight; however, the purchaser took 
possession of the merchandise upon loading in all cases. There were no 
additional services undertaken by Toscelik Profil.
    Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S.'s (``Tosyali Foreign Trade Co.'') one U.S. 
sale was made at only one LOT. Tosyali Foreign Trade Co. handles the 
direct communication with the customer, organizes logistics and the 
exportation of the merchandise. The merchandise for export is moved 
from Toscelik Profil's production facility to the port for loading and 
Tosyali Foreign Trade Co. arranged for ocean freight. Therefore, 
Tosyali Foreign Trade Co. does not take physical possession of exported 
pipes. Toscelik's one sale to the U.S. was made on a cost and freight 
(``CFR'') basis\3\ without the use of a selling agent. According to the 
terms of this sale, the seller is responsible for ocean freight, but 
not for inland freight in the country of destination. There were no 
other sales activities undertaken by Tosyali Foreign Trade Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The International Chamber of Commerce's (``ICC'') Incoterms 
defines the shipping contract term, ``CFR,'' as ``cost and freight'' 
and indicates that the seller must pay the cost and freight 
necessary to bring the goods to the named port of destination. See 
http://www.iccwbo.org/incoterms/preambles/pdf/CFR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Toscelik's sales functions in each market were nearly 
identical and do not vary by customer category, we have determined that 
the LOT in each market is the same and, therefore, have made no LOT 
adjustments in comparing its U.S. and home-market sales.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made 
currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow 
Jones Business Information Services.
    Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate 
in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the 
daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is the Department's practice 
to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs 
from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark rate is defined as 
the rolling average of the rates for the past 40 business days. When we 
determine that a fluctuation exists, we generally utilize the benchmark 
rate instead of the daily rate, in accordance with established 
practice.

Date of Sale

    Toscelik reported the date of sale as the invoice date, which is 
generated for its sale to the United States. During the sales 
verification of Toscelik, the Department reviewed the U.S. sales 
processes with company officials to establish that Toscelik's reporting 
of invoice date as the date of sale was appropriate. Toscelik sells 
from inventory in the home market and its U.S. sale was produced to 
order. We reviewed sample order fax confirmations and invoices, which 
support Toscelik's report of the sales date based on invoice date in 
the home market. We confirmed that the invoice date is the date when 
Toscelik's sales are registered into its accounting system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Verification Report of the Sales Response of Toscelik 
Profil ve Sac A.S., Tosyali Metal Ticaret A.S., and Tosyali Dis 
Ticaret A.S. (collectively, Tos[ccedil]elik) in the Antidumping 
Review of Certain Welded Pipe and Tube from Turkey, dated April 26, 
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, we note that for some observations in the home market 
database, the invoice date is later than the ship date. Therefore, in 
order to correct the reporting, we programmed the date of sale based on 
the shipment date rather than the invoice date. The Department uses 
shipment date as date of sale where shipment date occurred prior to the 
invoice date, as it is the Department's practice to use the date of 
shipment as the date of sale where the date of shipment precedes 
invoice date. See Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 623 (January 6, 2004). 
See also Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 68 FR 
52741 (September 5, 2003), and accompanying Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 3.
    In addition, the Department confirms that the invoice date reflects 
the date of sale for Toscelik's sale to the United States. At 
verification, the Department

[[Page 26047]]

confirmed that the final quantity amount of the U.S. sale was not known 
until Turkish Customs weighed the shipment.\5\ Therefore, the final 
terms of the U.S. sale were not finalized until the shipment was 
officially weighed and invoiced upon shipment to the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 
2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toscelik............................................        0.00 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 
in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date 
of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, 
(2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. 
Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If 
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter. The Department will publish a 
notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written 
comments or hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice.

Assessment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an 
assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Upon 
completion of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise by those 
importers. We have calculated each importer's duty assessment rate 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total calculated entered value of 
examined sales. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, the 
importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made 
during the POR.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for 
shipments from Toscelik of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube 
from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results of new shipper 
review. The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all 
shipments of subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date as provided for by 
sections 751(a)(1) and 751 (a)(2)(C) of the Act:
     for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by 
Toscelik, the cash deposit rate shall be 0.00 percent;
     for subject merchandise exported by Toscelik but not 
manufactured by Toscelik, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the 
``All Others'' rate or the rate applicable to the manufacturer, if so 
established;
     the cash deposit rate for exporters who received a rate in 
a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned 
in that segment of the proceeding;
     if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in 
any previous segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer in the 
most recent segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer 
participated;
     if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 
covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, 
the cash deposit rate will be 14.74 percent, the All Others rate 
established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
    These deposit requirements 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) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a 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. Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of new 
shipper review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 26, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6676 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S