[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26455-26463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6881]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and four 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars 
(rebar) from Turkey. This review covers 15 producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise to the United States. This is the seventh period of 
review (POR), covering April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.
    We have preliminarily determined that 11 of the producers/exporters 
have made sales below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results 
are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.
    On January 23, 2006, we rescinded the review with respect to ICDAS 
Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS) based on the 
Department's determination in the prior administrative review to revoke 
ICDAS from the order. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to 
rescind the review with respect to 18 companies because either: (1) 
These companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR; 
or (2) the questionnaires sent to these companies were returned to the 
Department because of undeliverable addresses.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, 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 or (202) 482-0498, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey (70 FR 16799).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), in April 2005, the 
Department received requests to conduct an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey from the following 
producers/exporters of rebar: Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu 
Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Colakoglu''); Diler Demir Celik 
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 
(now doing business as Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret 
A.S.) and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, ``Diler''); Habas Sinai 
ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and ICDAS. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on April 29, 2005, the 
petitioners, Nucor Corporation, Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation and 
Commercial Metals Company, also requested an administrative review for 
each of the above companies, as well as additional producers/exporters 
of rebar.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Akmisa Foreign Trade Ltd. Co. (Akmisa); Buyurgan Group Steel 
Division and Metalenerji A.S. (Buyurgan); Cag Celik Demir ve Celik 
Endustrisi A.S. (Cag Celik); Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. 
(Cebitas); Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas); 
Cukurova Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cukurova); Demirsan Haddecilik 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan); DHT Metal (DHT); Efesan Demir 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Efe Demir Celik (Efesan); Ege Celik 
Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik); Ege Metal Demir Celik 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal); Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi 
A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (Ekinciler); Ilhanlar Rolling 
and Textile Industries, Ltd., Sti. and Ilhanlar Group (Ilhanlar); 
Intermet A.S. (Intermet); Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. 
(Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir); Kaptan Demir 
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan); Kardemir - Karabuk Demir 
Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kardemir); Koc Dis Ticaret A.S. (Koc); 
Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman); Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret 
Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum); Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A.S. 
(Metas Izmir); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan 
Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan); Sivas Demir Celik 
Isletmeleri A.S. (Sivas); Sozer Steel Works (Sozer); ST Steel 
Industry and Foreign Trade Ltd. Sti. (ST Steel); Tosyali Demir Celik 
Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali); Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 
(Ucel); Yesilyurt Demir Celik/ Yesilyurt Demir Cekme San ve Tic Ltd. 
Sirketi (Yesilyurt); and the Yolbulan Group (Yolbulanlar Nak. ve 
Ticaret A.S., Yolbulan Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Yolbulan Dis 
Ticaret Ltd. Sti.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review for 
each of these companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 70 FR 30694 (May 27, 2005). From May 2005 through August 2005, 
we issued questionnaires to them.
    In June and August 2005, respectively, Tosyali and Cemtas informed 
the Department that they had no shipments or entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Because we confirmed this with CBP, we are 
preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these companies. 
For further discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' 
section of this notice.
    In August 2005, we received responses to sections A through C of 
the questionnaire (i.e., the sections regarding sales to the home 
market and the United States) from Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and 
Habas, as well as section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the section 
regarding cost of production (COP) and

[[Page 26456]]

constructed value (CV)) from Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas.
    In September 2005, the questionnaires sent to Akmisa, Cukurova, 
Metas Izmir, Sivas, and ST Steel were returned to the Department 
because of undeliverable addresses. Subsequently, we contacted the 
petitioners in this review and requested that they provide alternate 
addresses for these companies; however, they were unable to do so. 
Consequently, we are also preliminarily rescinding our review with 
respect to these companies. For further discussion, see the ``Partial 
Rescission of Review'' section of this notice.
    Also in September 2005, the petitioners alleged that Colakoglu was 
selling at prices below its COP in the home market. Based on an 
analysis of this allegation, the Department initiated an investigation 
to determine whether Colakoglu made home market sales at prices below 
its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act. Consequently, we required Colakoglu to submit a 
response to section D of the questionnaire. We received Colakoglu's 
response in October 2005.
    In September and October 2005, the following companies informed the 
Department that they had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise 
during the POR: Buyurgan, Cag Celik, Cebitas, Demirsan, DHT, Efesan, 
Ege Celik, Izmir, Kaptan, Kardemir, Kurum, and Yesilyurt. Because we 
confirmed this with CBP, we are preliminarily rescinding the review 
with respect to these companies. For further discussion, see the 
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice. We received no 
response to the questionnaire from the remaining companies (Ege Metal, 
Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, 
Ucel, and the Yolbulan group). Therefore, we have preliminarily 
determined to base the margin for each of them on adverse facts 
available (AFA). For further discussion, see the ``Application of Facts 
Available'' section of this notice.
    In October 2005, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
Ekinciler. We received a response to this questionnaire in November 
2005.
    In November 2005, the Department postponed the preliminary results 
of this review until no later than May 1, 2006. See Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time 
Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 70785 (Nov. 23, 2005).
    In November and December 2005, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas. We received 
responses to these questionnaires in December 2005 and January 2006.
    In January 2006, we rescinded the review with respect to ICDAS 
based on the Department's determination in the prior administrative 
review to revoke ICDAS from the order. See Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 3468 (Jan. 23, 2006). 
Also, in January 2006, we issued additional supplemental questionnaires 
to Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas. We received responses to these 
questionnaires in February 2006.
    In February and March 2006, we issued additional supplemental 
questionnaires to Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas. We received 
responses to these questionnaires in February and March 2006. Also, in 
February and March 2006, we conducted verifications in Turkey of the 
information submitted by Colakoglu and Diler.
    In March 2006, Mitsui Steel Inc. (Mitsui), an interested party to 
this proceeding, submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the 
importer of record for certain of Diler's U.S. sales, and it requested 
that the results of this review be applied to the associated entries. 
Based on the information provided by Mitsui, we have revised the 
entered values and importer of record for the transactions in question. 
See the ``Assessment'' section below for further discussion.
    In April 2006, we issued further supplemental questionnaires to 
Ekinciler and Habas. We received responses to these questionnaires in 
April 2006.
    Finally, in April 2006, it came to our attention that one of 
Diler's affiliated rebar producers, Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve 
Ticaret A.S. (Yazici), changed its corporate structure prior to the 
initiation of this review and is now doing business under the name 
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S. (Yazici Turizm). As a 
result, we solicited information on this change from Diler. Diler 
supplied this information in April 2006. After analyzing this 
information, we preliminarily find that Yazici Turizm is the successor-
in-interest to Yazici. For further discussion, see the ``Successor-in-
Interest'' section of this notice, below.

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 
under subheadings 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description 
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Successor-in-Interest

    As noted above, in April 2006, Diler informed the Department that 
its affiliated producer, Yazici, merged with another group company and 
is now doing business under the name Yazici Turizm. As a result, on 
April 13, 2006, we requested that Diler address the following four 
factors with respect to this change in corporate structure in order to 
determine whether Yazici Turizm is the successor-in-interest to Yazici: 
management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier 
relationships, and customer base.
    On April 18, 2006, Diler responded to the Department's request. In 
this submission, Diler stated that, in 2002, Yazici changed its name to 
Yazici Turizm and merged with another company in the Diler Group, which 
was involved in a hotel construction project in Turkey. According to 
Diler, neither the name change nor the merger has had any effect on the 
core activity of the company, which is to produce billets and rebar. 
Specifically, Diler stated that there were no changes to Yazici's 
management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier 
relationships, or customer base as a result of the change in corporate 
structure. Therefore, Diler requested that the Department inform CBP 
that the company in existence and subject to the 2004-2005 
administrative review was Yazici Turizm.
    Based on our analysis of Diler's April 18, 2006, submission, we 
find that Yazici Turizm's organizational structure, management, 
production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have 
remained essentially unchanged. Further, we find that Yazici Turizm 
operates as the same business entity as Yazici with respect to the 
production and sale of rebar. Thus, we find that Yazici Turizm is the 
successor-in-interest to Yazici, and, as a consequence, its exports of 
rebar are subject to this proceeding. For further discussion, see the 
May 1, 2006, memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys,

[[Page 26457]]

Deputy Assistant Secretary, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting 
Office Director, entitled, ``Successor-In-Interest Determination for 
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi 
ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler'') in 
the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Turkey.''

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Buyurgan, Cag Celik, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, 
DHT, Efesan, Ege Celik, Izmir, Kaptan, Kardemir, Tosyali, and Yesilyurt 
informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this 
with CBP. See the Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker entitled, 
``Placing Customs Entry Documents on the Record of the 2004-2005 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 2, 2005. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the 
Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with 
respect to these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To Revoke in 
Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 (Nov. 8, 2005); Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in 
Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004).
    In addition, the questionnaires sent to Akmisa, Cukurova, Metas 
Izmir, Sivas, and ST Steel were returned to the Department because of 
undeliverable addresses. Although we requested that the petitioners 
provide alternate addresses for these companies, they were unable to do 
so. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Brianne 
Riker entitled, ``Placing Information on the Record in the 2004-2005 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars (Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated September 20, 2005. Because we were 
unable to locate these companies, we are also preliminarily rescinding 
our review with respect to them.

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act, provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: (1) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the information 
cannot be verified.
    As discussed in the ``Background'' section, above, on August 26, 
2005, the Department requested that Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet, 
Iskenderun, Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan 
Group respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. The 
deadline to file a response was October 3, 2005. The Department did not 
receive a response from these companies. On October 31, 2005, the 
Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of 
the questionnaires to each company. See the Memorandum to the File from 
Brianne Riker entitled, ``Placing Information on the Record of the 
2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated October 31, 
2005. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 
because these companies did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of total 
facts available is appropriate.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 
Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 
(1994) (SAA). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an 
adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel 
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). 
We preliminarily find that Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet, Iskenderun, 
Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan Group did 
not act to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the 
meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to 
the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, an adverse inference is 
warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available. See Nippon, 
337 F.3d at 1382-83.
     Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA, information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final 
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any 
other information placed on the record.
    The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among 
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 
8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). Additionally, the Department's practice has 
been to assign the highest margin determined for any party in the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review of 
a specific order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the 
Department. See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, 
With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 
FR 54897, 54898 (Sept. 19, 2005).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 41.80 
percent, which was the rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the 
initiation of the LTFV investigation. This rate was assigned in a 
previous segment of this proceeding and is the highest rate determined 
for any respondent in any segment of this

[[Page 26458]]

proceeding. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 
Turkey, 62 FR 16543 (Apr. 7, 1997) (Amended LTFV Final Determination). 
The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule (i.e., we find that 
this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments 
of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act).
    Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Department's regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA at 870. 
To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information to be used. Unlike other types of 
information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no 
independent sources from which the Department can derive dumping 
margins. The only source for dumping margins is administrative 
determinations. In the LTFV investigation in this proceeding, the 
Department found that the petition rate was reliable. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 61 FR 53203, 53204 (Oct. 
10, 1996), unchanged in the Amended LTFV Final Determination.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to 
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is 
not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the 
highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was based on a 
company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually 
high margin). Therefore, we examined whether any information on the 
record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts available. 
To do so, we conducted research in an attempt to find data that might 
help inform the Department's corroboration analysis. We were unable to 
find any information that would discredit the selected AFA rate. See 
the Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker entitled, ``Research for 
Corroboration for the Preliminary Results in the 2004-2005 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
(Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated May 1, 2006. Since we did not find 
evidence indicating that the margin used as facts available in this 
proceeding is not appropriate, we have determined that the 41.80 
percent margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is appropriate as 
AFA and are assigning this rate to Ege Metal, Ilhanlar, Intermet, 
Iskenderun, Koc, Kroman, Nurmet, Nursan, Sozer, Ucel, and the Yolbulan 
Group. This is consistent with section 776(b) of the Act which states 
that adverse inferences may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the 
United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to the 
NV. When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in 
the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice, above, that were in 
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of 
trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade based on the 
characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping 
questionnaire.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted 
to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. 
and home markets that were identical with respect to the following 
characteristics: form, grade, size, and industry standard 
specification. Where there were no home market sales of foreign like 
product that were identical in these respects to the merchandise sold 
in the United States, we compared U.S. products with the most similar 
merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed 
above, in that order of priority.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas, 
we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, 
because the subject merchandise was sold 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 facts of record.
    Regarding the date of sale, three of the respondents (i.e., 
Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas) argued that we should use one of the 
following dates as the date of sale for their U.S. sales in this 
review: (1) the date of the original contract; (2) the date of the 
contract amendment; (3) the date of the amended letter of credit; (4) 
the date of the purchase order; or (5) the date of the sales 
confirmation. After analyzing the information on the record of this 
review with respect to this issue, we find that, not only were the 
initial agreements between these respondents and their U.S. customers 
often subject to change, they in fact did change. Thus we have used 
invoice date as the U.S. date of sale for Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas 
in accordance with 19 CFR 401(i). Regarding Ekinciler, we used the 
contract date as the date of sale because the evidence on the record 
shows that there were no changes in the material terms of sale between 
the contract and the invoice. For further discussion, see the 
Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker entitled, ``Date of Sale 
Information for the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 1, 
2006.

A. Colakoglu

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for loading expenses, overage 
charges, inspection fees, demurrage expenses (offset by freight 
commission revenue, dispatch revenue, and other freight-related 
revenue), ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. 
customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

B. Diler

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, loading expenses (including charges for loading supervision), 
ocean freight expenses (offset by dispatch revenue), and brokerage and 
handling expenses, where

[[Page 26459]]

appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    Regarding foreign inland freight and international freight 
services, Diler reported that certain of these services were provided 
by an affiliated party. At verification, we tested the movement 
expenses charged by affiliated parties to determine whether the prices 
charged were at ``arm's length.'' Where we found that the prices were 
not at arm's length, we adjusted them to be equivalent to the market 
price. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from 
Alice Gibbons entitled, ``Calculations Performed for Diler Demir Celik 
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 
and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler'') for the Preliminary 
Results in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 1, 
2006.

C. Ekinciler

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign brokerage and 
handling, crane charges, terminal charges, port charges, overage 
charges, inspection fees, demurrage expenses (offset by dispatch 
revenue) and ocean freight expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

D. Habas

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, loading charges, forklift charges, surveying expenses, 
customs overtime fees, demurrage expenses, and ocean freight expenses, 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales.
    For each respondent, in accordance with our practice, we excluded 
home market sales of non-prime merchandise made during the POR from our 
preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in the 
home market and the fact that no such sales were made to the United 
States during the POR. See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993); Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination To 
Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (Nov. 8, 2005); Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of 
Intent Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 25066, 25066 (May 5, 2004); Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 21634, 21636 (May 1, 
2002), unchanged by the final results; Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 56274 (Nov. 7, 2001) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

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

    Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas made sales of rebar to affiliated 
parties in the home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested 
these sales to ensure that they were made at arm's-length prices, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the sales to 
affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit 
prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. 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 at the same level of trade (LOT), 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 (Nov. 15, 2002).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Diler, 
Ekinciler, and Habas, there were reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that these respondents had made home market sales at prices 
below their COPs in this review because the Department had disregarded 
sales that failed the cost test for these companies in the most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which these companies 
participated (i.e., the 2000-2001 administrative review for Ekinciler, 
the 2001-2002 administrative review for Habas, and the 2002-2003 
administrative review for Diler). As a result, the Department initiated 
an investigation to determine whether these companies had made home 
market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, for Colakoglu, 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that this 
respondent had made home market sales at prices below its COP in this 
review because of information contained in the cost allegation properly 
filed in this review by the petitioners. As a result, the Department 
initiated an investigation to determine whether Colakoglu made home 
market sales during the POR at prices below its COP. See the Memorandum 
from The Team to Office Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 
entitled, ``Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production for Colakoglu Metalurji A.S.,'' dated September 22, 2005.

1. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses. See the ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of home 
market selling expenses.
    We relied on the COP information provided by each respondent in its 
questionnaire responses, except for the following instances where the 
information was not appropriately quantified or valued:

A. Colakoglu

1. We adjusted Colakoglu's reported cost of manufacturing (COM) to 
appropriately value the claimed offset related to transactions with an 
affiliated party.
2. We included the depreciation expense related to buildings in the 
reported COM.
3. We based the interest expense ratio on the amounts reflected in

[[Page 26460]]

Colakoglu's 2004 fiscal year statutory financial statements, which were 
prepared in accordance with Turkish generally accepted accounting 
principles. We note that in the previous administrative review, 
Colakoglu used its financial statements which were prepared in 
accordance with International Accounting Standards (IAS) to calculate 
its financial expenses. However, in this review, we find that the 
statutory financial statements are preferable to Colakoglu's 2004 IAS 
financial statements (also submitted by Colakoglu on the record of this 
segment) because the statutory financial statements most clearly 
reflect the data recorded in Colakoglu's normal books and records.
4. We revised the reported G&A expense ratio to be consistent with the 
revision of the indirect selling expense ratio, based on our findings 
at verification.

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum 
from Sheikh Hannan to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Colakoglu 
Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively 
``Colakoglu''),'' dated May 1, 2006.

B. Diler

1. We adjusted Yazici Turizm's reported COM to increase the cost of 
certain billets purchased from its affiliate Korfez Steel Industry and 
Trade Inc. to market value, in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the 
Act.
2. We recalculated Diler's G&A expense ratio calculation to: 1) reflect 
the treatment of parent company G&A expenses in its normal books and 
records; and 2) exclude an offset for certain non-operating income.
3. Because the financial expense ratio for Diler is negative, we set it 
to zero. This is in accordance with the Department's practice of 
determining that, when a company earns enough financial income that it 
recovers all of its financial expense, that company did not have a 
resulting cost for financing during that period. See Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood 
Lumber Products From Canada, 70 FR 73437 (Dec. 12, 2005) (Lumber from 
Canada), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 9 
and 25.

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum 
from Margaret Pusey to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Diler Demir 
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret 
A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Diler''),'' dated May 
1, 2006.

C. Ekinciler

1. We revised the reported G&A expenses to include a proportionate 
share of Ekinciler's parent company's company-wide G&A expenses. In 
addition, we included in total G&A expenses certain items which had 
been excluded.
2. We revised Ekinciler's reported financial expenses to exclude 
certain offsets to the financial expenses related to investment income.

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum 
from Mark Todd to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - 
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. (Ekinciler),'' dated May 1, 2006.

D. Habas

1. Because the financial expense ratio for Habas is negative, we set it 
to zero in accordance with the Department's practice. See Lumber from 
Canada at Comments 9 and 25.
2. We adjusted Habas's reported COM by disallowing a claimed offset for 
double-counted billet costs because Habas failed to demonstrate that 
these costs were double-counted.

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum 
from James Balog to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - 
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.,'' dated May 1, 
2006.

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices 
of the foreign like product, as required under 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 home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, selling expenses, 
and packing expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: 1) in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and 2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. See sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

3. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that 
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such 
cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for 
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded these below-cost 
sales for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas and used the remaining 
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1) of the Act.

D. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in 
the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales 
from which we derive selling, G&A expenses, and profit. For EP, the 
U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually 
from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP 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 
difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make 
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    All the respondents in this review claimed that they sold rebar at 
a single LOT in their home and U.S. markets. However, three of these 
respondents (Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas) reported that they sold rebar 
directly to various categories of customers in the home market, while 
the remaining company (Colakoglu) reported that it made both

[[Page 26461]]

direct sales and sales through affiliated resellers to various 
categories of customers in the home market. Regarding U.S. sales, all 
respondents reported only EP sales to the United States to a single 
customer category (i.e., unaffiliated traders). However, three of these 
companies reported direct sales to U.S. customers, while one respondent 
(Colakoglu) reported sales through an affiliated party in the United 
States. Regarding these latter sales, we have classified them as EP 
transactions because we confirmed at verification that: (1) all 
significant selling activities related to these sales (e.g., price 
negotiations, invoicing) were conducted by Colakoglu personnel in 
Turkey; (2) the only selling functions provided by Colakoglu employees 
on behalf of the affiliated party include certain import-related 
expenses; and (3) this affiliated party has no physical location or 
employees in the United States.
    To determine whether sales to any of these customer categories were 
made at different LOTs, we examined the stages in the marketing process 
and selling functions along the chain of distribution for each of these 
respondents. Regarding U.S. sales, each of the respondents reported 
that it performed identical selling functions across customer 
categories and channels of distribution in the U.S. market, except in 
the case of Colakoglu which also provided certain import-related 
services with respect to its sales through an affiliated party. After 
analyzing the data on the record with respect to these functions, we 
find that the respondents made all sales at the same marketing stage 
(i.e., the same LOT) in the U.S. market, and any additional import-
related services provided by Colakoglu with respect to its affiliated 
party sales do not rise to the level of a separate LOT.
    Regarding home market sales, each of the respondents reported that 
it performed identical selling functions across customer categories in 
the home market. After analyzing the data on the record with respect to 
these functions, we find that the respondents performed the same 
selling functions for their home market customers, regardless of 
customer category or channel of distribution. Specifically, regarding 
Colakoglu, although it made direct sales and sales through its 
affiliated resellers in the home market, we find that there is one home 
market LOT because: (1) the resellers do not have separate locations 
apart from Colakoglu's offices; and (2) all selling activities related 
to home market sales made by the affiliated resellers are performed by 
Colakoglu personnel. Therefore, we find that Colakoglu does not perform 
an additional layer of selling functions for the home market sales 
through its affiliated resellers. Accordingly, we find that Colakoglu, 
Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas made all sales at the same marketing stage 
(i.e., at the same LOT) in the home market.
    For sales to the United States, Colakoglu performed the same 
selling functions/services as it did for its home market sales, and it 
also provided certain import-related services for U.S. sales. Diler, 
Ekinciler, and Habas performed the same selling functions/services for 
their U.S. sales as they did for their home market sales. After 
analyzing the reported information, we find that the U.S. LOT for each 
respondent is the same as its home market LOT. As a consequence, we 
find that no LOT adjustment is warranted in this case.

E. Calculation of Normal Value

1. Colakoglu

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the Turkish lira (TL) price adjusted for kur 
farki (i.e., an adjustment to the TL invoice price to account for the 
difference between the estimated and actual TL value on the date of 
payment), because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, 
which remained unchanged. The buyer merely paid the TL-equivalent 
amount at the time of payment. This treatment is consistent with our 
treatment of these transactions in the most recently completed segment 
of this proceeding. 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, 23995 (May 6, 2005), unchanged in the final results. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank charges, exporter 
association fees, and commissions. Regarding commissions, Colakoglu 
incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. Therefore, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by the lesser 
of the commission amount or home market indirect selling expenses. We 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable 
costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject 
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).

2. Diler

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because 
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained 
unchanged. For further discussion, see the ``Colakoglu'' section above. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank fees, and exporter 
association fees. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable 
costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject 
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).

3. Ekinciler

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because 
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained 
unchanged. For further discussion, see the ``Colakoglu'' section above. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
billing adjustments. In addition, we made deductions for foreign inland 
freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, bank charges, exporter association fees, and commissions. 
Regarding commissions,

[[Page 26462]]

Ekinciler incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. 
Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by 
the lesser of the commission amount or home market indirect selling 
expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Because 
Ekinciler reported that certain of its packing expenses were invoiced 
by an affiliated party, we tested the prices charged by the affiliate 
to determine whether they were at arm's length. Where we found that the 
prices were not at arm's length, we adjusted the price charged by the 
affiliate to include the selling, general, and administrative expenses 
incurred related to the provision of these services. For further 
discussion, see the Memorandum to the File from Irina Itkin entitled, 
``Calculations Performed for Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and 
Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Ekinciler'') for the 
Preliminary Results in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated May 1, 
2006.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable 
costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject 
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).

4. Habas

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-
dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because 
the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, which remained 
unchanged. For further discussion, see the ``Colakoglu'' section above.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(b), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, bank charges, exporter association fees, and commissions. 
Regarding commissions, Habas incurred commissions only in relation to 
U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. 
commissions by the lesser of the commission amount or home market 
indirect selling expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the 
Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.411(a). We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable 
costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject 
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars pursuant to section 
773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415. Although the Department's 
preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank, 
the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for 
Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on exchange 
rates from the Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as 
Factiva).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
respondents during the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter              Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret     0.26 (de minimis)
 A.S................................................
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./.......
Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S./...
Diler Dis Ticaret A.S...............................   0.02 (de minimis)
Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.........               41.80
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler                  0.00
 Dis Ticaret A.S....................................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi                    0.00
 A.S................................................
Ilhanlar Rolling and Textile Industries, Ltd., Sti.                41.80
 and Ilhanlar Group.................................
Intermet A.S........................................               41.80
Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co....................               41.80
Koc Dis Ticaret A.S.................................               41.80
Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S.............................               41.80
Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S..................               41.80
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S...............               41.80
Sozer Steel Works...................................               41.80
Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S...............               41.80
Yolbulanlar Nak. ve Ticaret A.S./...................
Yolbulan Metal Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./..............
Yolbulan Dis Ticaret Ltd., Sti......................               41.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are 
filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases 
briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, 
may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. The Department will issue the final results of the 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written comments, within 120 days of publication of 
these preliminary results.

Assessment

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.
    On March 9, 2006, Mitsui, an interested party to this proceeding, 
submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of record for 
certain of Diler's POR sales. We examined the information submitted by 
Mitsui and tied it to the U.S. sales listing, as well as to 
documentation obtained at the sales verification of Diler. We noted 
that Mitsui was indeed the importer of record for the sales in 
question. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer-specific 
assessment rates, we have treated Mitsui as the importer of record for 
Diler's relevant POR shipments.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by Habas and 
Colakoglu, as well as for certain sales made by Diler, 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 certain of Diler's and all of Ekinciler'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

[[Page 26463]]

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 estimated entered value.
    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.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in 
these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies 
did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, as 
well as any companies for which we are rescinding the review based on 
certifications of no shipments. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For 
a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, de minimis within 
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; (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 the 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 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.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6881 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S