[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45521-45530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12999]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-831]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by one Taiwanese manufacturer/
exporter, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia

[[Page 45522]]

Far) and petitioners,\1\ the Department of Commerce (the Department) is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSS) from Taiwan. This 
review covers fifteen producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. 
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation, 
Butler Armco Independent Union, J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., United 
Steelworks of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent 
Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has preliminarily determined that some of the 
companies subject to this review made U.S. sales at prices less than 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results of review. We will issue the final results of 
review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this 
notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3518.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on SSSS from Taiwan. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999). 
On July 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on SSSS from Taiwan. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 
2005).
    On July 29, 2005, Chia Far requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise 
into the United States during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  
351.213(b)(2). Additionally, on July 29, 2005, petitioners requested 
that the Department conduct a review of fifteen companies pursuant to 
19 CFR Sec.  351.213(b)(1). Based on these requests, the Department 
initiated an administrative review of the following fifteen companies: 
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen), China Steel Corporation 
(China Steel), Yieh Mau Corp. (Yieh Mau), Chain Chon Industrial Co., 
Ltd. (Chain Chon), Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Goang Jau 
Shing), PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PFP Taiwan), Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., 
Ltd. (also known as Chung Hung Steel Co., Ltd. (Yieh Loong), Tang Eng 
Iron Works (Tang Eng), Yieh Trading Corp. (Yieh Corp.), Chien Shing 
Stainless Co. (Chien Shing), Chia Far, Yieh United Steel Corporation 
(YUSCO), Emerdex Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc., Emerdex 
Stainless Steel, Inc., and the Emerdex Group (the Emerdex companies). 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 
2005).
    On August 10, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to all of the companies for which a review was initiated 
except the Emerdex companies (for further discussion of the Emerdex 
companies, see the section of this notice entitled ``Partial 
Preliminary Rescission of Review,'' below).\2\ Of the seven companies 
that responded to the questionnaire, only Chia Far reported that it 
sold subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which 
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests 
a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market 
is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market 
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy 
(NME) cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. 
Section D requests information on the cost of production (COP) of 
the foreign like product and the constructed value (CV) of the 
merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further 
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout this administrative review, the Department has issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Chia Far, YUSCO, and Yieh Mau, and 
petitioners have submitted comments regarding the respondents' 
questionnaire responses. The petitioners have also submitted comments 
regarding the Emerdex companies, Ta Chen, and the respondents claiming 
no sales or shipments.
    On February 23, 2006, the Department notified the following 
companies by letter that if they did not respond to the Department's 
requests for information by March 9, 2006, the Department may use 
adverse facts available (AFA) in determining their dumping margins: 
Tang Eng, Goang Jau Shing, Chien Shing, PFP Taiwan, China Steel, Chain 
Chon, and Yieh Corp. On March 8, 2006, Chain Chon reported that it and 
its affiliates did not export subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. On June 9, 2006, China Steel reported that it did not 
produce, sell, or export subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR.
    On March 22, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for issuing 
the preliminary results in this administrative review until July 31, 
2006. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 14502 (March 22, 2006).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Period of Review

    The POR is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet 
and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by 
weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of 
chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip 
is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width 
and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise 
heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and 
strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, 
aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific 
dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.
    The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 
7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 
7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 
7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 
7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80,

[[Page 45523]]

7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 
7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 
7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is 
dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness 
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent 
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain specialty 
stainless steel products described below. Flapper valve steel is 
defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, 
between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent 
molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel 
also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon 
of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. 
The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with 
inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for 
oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile 
strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 
270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 
590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty 
flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as Arnokrome III.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless 
steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 
percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its 
resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 
1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms 
per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most 
commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers 
and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The 
product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as 
Gilphy 36.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Gilphy 36 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 
percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as Durphynox 17.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Durphynox 17 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\6\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as GIN4 Mo. The second excluded stainless 
steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, 
carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 
0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. 
This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles 
per 100 square microns. An example of this product is GIN5 steel. The 
third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, 
with carbon of between 0.37 and

[[Page 45524]]

0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower 
manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 
0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 
no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, GIN6.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \7\ GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary grades of Hitachi 
Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Preliminary Rescission of Review

    Six respondents, YUSCO, Yieh Mau, Ta Chen, Chain Chon, Yieh Loong, 
and China Steel, certified to the Department that they did not ship 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department 
subsequently obtained CBP information consistent with the respondents' 
claims. See Memorandum From Melissa Blackledge To The File, Data Query 
Results and Entry Packages, dated June 29, 2006.
    The evidence on the record does not indicate that YUSCO, Yieh Mau, 
Ta Chen, Chain Chon, Yieh Loong, or China Steel exported subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, it is 
appropriate to rescind the review for these respondents based on the 
fact that there were no exports or entries of SSSS during the POR. See 
Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F. Supp 2d 
1344, 1374 (2004). In accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.213(d)(3) and 
consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily 
rescinding our review with respect to YUSCO, Yieh Mau, Ta Chen, Chain 
Chon, Yieh Loong, and China Steel. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 63 FR 35190, 
35191 (June 29, 1998); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 14, 1997).

Emerdex Companies

    The Department finds that it is appropriate to rescind the instant 
review with respect to the Emerdex Companies. During the course of this 
administrative review, petitioners have submitted the following 
information which they claim supports their contention that there is an 
Emerdex company which is a Taiwanese exporter, supplier, or producer of 
subject merchandise: (1) a 2003 Dun & Bradstreet Business Information 
Report for Emerdex Stainless Flat Roll Products Inc. (Emerdex Flat 
Roll) indicating the company ``operates blast furnaces or steel mills, 
specializing in the manufacture of stainless steel,'' (2) Emerdex Flat 
Roll's 2003 U.S. income tax return indicating at least 25% of the 
company is owned by someone in Taiwan, (3) the 2002 financial statement 
of Ta Chen showing the second largest accounts payable balance for the 
company was owed to Emerdex. According to petitioners, the principal 
input used by Ta Chen in production is SSSS.\8\ Based upon the above 
information, petitioners urge the Department to explore this matter 
further by issuing a series of questions regarding affiliation to any 
parent company that Emerdex might have in Taiwan (via Emerdex Flat Roll 
or Ta Chen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ta Chen has been a respondent in the antidumping duty 
proceeding involving stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from 
Taiwan. In the 2002-2003 segment of that proceeding, the Department 
found Ta Chen to be affiliated to the Emerdex companies (these 
companies imported stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings into the 
United States). As noted above, Ta Chen is also a respondent in the 
instant administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding petitioners' arguments, we find it appropriate to 
preliminarily rescind the instant review with respect to the Emerdex 
companies rather than undertake an examination of those U.S. companies, 
and their affiliates, in order to determine the appropriate respondent. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec.  351.213(b)(2), domestic interested parties may 
request a review of ``specified individual exporters or producers 
covered by the order.'' Information in the petitioners' September 27, 
2005, submission to the Department indicates that the Emerdex Companies 
named by petitioners in their review request are United States 
corporations located in California, U.S.A.\9\ See also petitioners' 
November 5, 2005, submission to the Department. The party requesting an 
administrative review ``must bear the relatively small burden imposed 
on it by the regulation to name names'' of the appropriate respondent 
in its review request. See Floral Trade Council v. United States, et 
al., 17 CIT 1417, 1418 citing Floral Trade Council v. United States, 
888 F.2d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 1993; see also Potassium 
Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 58306, 58307 (October 9, 
2003) (the Department rescinded the review noting that the party 
requested a review of a U.S. importer, rather than an exporter or 
producer of subject merchandise and it failed to identify the exporter 
or producer to be reviewed). Where this burden has not been met, the 
``ITA is not required to conduct an investigation to determine who 
should be investigated in an administrative review proceeding.'' Floral 
Trade Council v. United States et al., 707 F. Supp. 1343, 1345 (1989). 
Moreover, petitioners' failure to name the actual parties to be 
reviewed has deprived importers of notice that their imports could be 
affected by the review. As the Court of International Trade (CIT) 
stated, the Department's initiation notice ``serves to notify any 
interested party that the antidumping duty rate on goods obtained from 
exporters named in the notice of initiation for an administrative 
review may be affected by the outcome of that review. So apprised, 
``importers could participate in the administrative review in an effort 
to ensure that the calculation of antidumping duties on those products 
was correct.'' See Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 876, 880 
(1999). Here, no such notice was given because petitioners failed to 
name the foreign exporters or producers to be reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Also, the Department was not able to locate any company in 
Taiwan named Emerdex or with Emerdex as part of its name, and the 
petitioners did not submit any information on the record identifying 
any Emerdex company located or operating in Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we note that none of the information placed on the record 
by petitioners demonstrates that there is an Emerdex parent corporation 
in Taiwan that produces or exports subject merchandise. The Dunn & 
Bradstreet report and Ta Chen's accounts payable balance relate to the 
Emerdex companies located in California, not companies located in 
Taiwan.\10\ Furthermore, Emerdex Flat Roll's 2003 U.S. tax return does 
not state that the company has a parent corporation in Taiwan. Rather, 
the tax return simply notes that during the tax year, a ``foreign 
person'' in Taiwan owned, directly or indirectly, either 25% or more of 
the

[[Page 45525]]

company's voting shares or 25% or more of the total value of all 
classes of the company's stock. The information in the tax return does 
not indicate that the ``foreign person'' is a company, let alone a 
company that produces or exports subject merchandise. Accordingly, the 
Department is preliminarily rescinding the instant review with respect 
to the Emerdex companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Additionally, the Department has obtained information from 
Dunn & Bradstreet indicating that Emerdex Flat Roll is a wholesaler 
of stainless steel products, not a producer. See the Memorandum From 
Melissa Blackledge To The File regarding the Dun & Bradstreet 
Business Information Report submitted by Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC 
on behalf of petitioners, dated February 27, 2006. The information 
the Department obtained from Dunn & Bradstreet is consistent with 
the business activity code reported for Emerdex Flat Roll in the 
company's 2003 U.S. income tax return and the information reported 
to the Department in the 2002-2003 administrative review of 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. See Ta Chen's 
January 26, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response (at B-1 and B-
2) from the stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings case (on July 
13, 2006, the Department placed these pages on the record of this 
review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that if any interested 
party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for 
submission of the information or in the form or manner requested, (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides such information 
but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in making 
its determination.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    The evidence on the record of this review establishes that, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of total facts 
available is warranted in determining the dumping margin for Tang Eng, 
PFP Taiwan, Yieh Corp., Goang Jau Shing, and Chien Shing, because these 
companies failed to provide requested information. Specifically, these 
companies failed to respond to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire.
    On February 23, 2006, the Department informed these companies by 
letter that failure to respond to the requests for information by March 
9, 2006, may result in the use of facts available in determining their 
dumping margins. These five manufacturers/exporters, however, did not 
respond to the Department's February 23, 2006, letter. Because these 
respondents failed to provide any of the necessary information 
requested by the Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we have based the dumping margins for these companies on the facts 
otherwise available.

Use of Adverse Inferences

    Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ``finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority..., the administering authority ... in reaching 
the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference 
that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available.'' See also Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. 
Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) of the Act also provides 
that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in the investigation 
under this title; (3) any previous review under section 751 or 
determination under section 753; or (4) any other information on the 
record.
    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 SAA at 870; Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. 
United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 1999). The Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in Nippon Steel Corporation v. United 
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003), held that the Department 
need not show intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent 
in substantiating a finding of ``failure to act to the best of a 
respondent's ability;'' but rather an adverse inference may be drawn 
from circumstances in which it is reasonable for Commerce to expect 
that more forthcoming responses should have been made, i.e., 
information was not provided ``under circumstances in which it is 
reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has been 
shown.'' Id.
    The record shows that Tang Eng, PFP Taiwan, Yieh Corp., Goang Jau 
Shing, and Chien Shing failed to cooperate to the best of their 
abilities, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. As noted 
above, Tang Eng, PFP Taiwan, Yieh Corp., Goang Jau Shing, and Chien 
Shing failed to provide any response to the Department's requests for 
information. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the Department 
to assume that these companies possessed the records necessary to 
participate in this review; however, by not supplying the information 
the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the 
best of their abilities. As these companies have failed to cooperate to 
the best of their abilities, we are applying an adverse inference in 
determining their dumping margin pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. 
We have therefore assigned these companies a dumping margin of 21.10 
percent, which is the highest appropriate dumping margin from this or 
any prior segment of the instant proceeding. See section 776(b)(2) of 
the Act. This rate was the highest petition margin and was used as AFA 
in numerous antidumping duty administrative reviews of this order. See, 
e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan; Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 
6682 (February 13, 2002) (1999-2000 AR of SSSS from Taiwan).
    The Department notes that while the highest dumping margin 
calculated during this or any prior segment of the instant proceeding 
is 36.44 percent, this margin represents a combined rate applied to a 
channel transaction in the investigation in this proceeding, and it is 
based on ``middleman dumping'' by Ta Chen. See Tung Mung Development 
Co. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1345 (CIT 2002), aff'd 354 
F. 3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where circumstances indicate that a 
particular dumping margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department 
will disregard the margin and determine another more appropriate one as 
facts available. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 
1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest dumping margin for 
use as AFA because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an unusually high 
dumping margin). An AFA rate based on middleman dumping would be 
inappropriate given that the record does not indicate that any of Tang 
Eng's, PFP Taiwan's, Yieh Corp.'s, Goang Jau Shing's, or Chien Shing's 
exports to the United States during the POR involved a middleman. Thus, 
consistent with previous reviews, the Department has continued to use 
as AFA the highest dumping margin from any segment of the proceeding 
for a producer's direct exports to the United States, without middleman 
dumping, which is 21.10 percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department, to the 
extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent 
sources that are reasonably at its disposal.

[[Page 45526]]

Secondary information is defined as ``{i{time} nformation derived from 
the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final 
determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous 
review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA 
at 870. The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As noted in F.Lii de Cecco di 
Filippo Fara S. Martino, S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1030 
(2000), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to 
the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information.
    The rate of 21.10 percent constitutes secondary information. To 
corroborate this rate we compared recent transaction-specific rates for 
other respondents covered by the antidumping duty order on SSSS from 
Taiwan to the 21.10 percent rate and found the 21.10 percent rate to be 
reliable and relevant for use in this administrative review. For the 
company-specific information used to corroborate this rate, see 
Memorandum from Melissa Blackledge, International Trade Analyst, to the 
File regarding Research for Corroboration for the Preliminary Results 
in the 2004-2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan, dated concurrently with 
this notice. We find the 21.10 percent rate to be probative because it 
does not appear to be aberrational when compared to the respondents' 
transaction-specific rates and no information has been presented to 
call into question the relevance of the rate. Thus, we find that the 
rate of 21.10 percent is sufficiently corroborated for purposes of the 
instant administrative review.

Affiliation

    During the first administrative review in this proceeding, the 
Department found Chia Far and its U.S. reseller, Lucky Medsup Inc. 
(Lucky Medsup), to be affiliated by way of a principal-agent 
relationship. The Department primarily based its finding on: (1) a 
document demonstrating the existence of a principal-agent relationship; 
(2) Chia Far's degree of involvement in sales between Lucky Medsup and 
its customers; (3) evidence indicating Chia Far knew the identity of 
Lucky Medsup's customers, and the customers were aware of Chia Far; (4) 
Lucky Medsup's operations as a ``go-through'' who did not maintain any 
inventory or further manufacture products; and, (5) Chia Far's 
inability to provide any documents to support its claim that the 
document indicating a principal-agent relationship was not valid during 
the POR. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 6682 (February 13, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 23 (upheld by CIT in Chia Far Industrial 
Factory Co. Ltd. v. United States, et al., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1356 
(August 2, 2004)). The Department continues to treat Chia Far and Lucky 
Medsup as affiliated parties.
    In the instant administrative review Chia Far contends that it is 
no longer affiliated with Lucky Medsup because: (1) there is no cross-
ownership between Chia Far and Lucky Medsup and no sharing of officers 
or directors; (2) Lucky Medsup's owner operates independently of Chia 
Far as a middleman; (3) Lucky Medsup's transactions with Chia Far are 
at arm's length; (4) there are no exclusive distribution contracts 
between Lucky Medsup and Chia Far (the one that existed in 1994, was 
terminated in 1995); and, (5) Lucky Medsup is not obligated to sell 
Chia Far's merchandise and Chia Far is not obligated to sell through 
Lucky Medsup in the United States.
    We, however, find the fact pattern in the instant review mirrors 
that which existed in the first antidumping duty administrative review 
when the Department found the parties to be affiliated. See Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682 (February 13, 
2002). First and foremost, Chia Far could not provide any documents in 
response to the Department's request that it demonstrate that the 
agency agreement was terminated and the principal-agent relationship no 
longer exists. See Chia Far's January 19, 2006, supplemental 
questionnaire response at page 4. Furthermore, Chia Far's degree of 
involvement in Lucky Medsup's U.S. sales is similar to that found in 
prior reviews. Specifically, Chia Far played a role in the sales 
negotiation process with the end-customer (Chia Far was informed of the 
identity of the end-customers and of certain sales terms that they had 
requested before it set its price to Lucky Medsup), Lucky Medsup's 
sales order confirmation identifies Chia Far as the manufacturer, and 
Chia Far shipped the merchandise directly to end-customers and provided 
technical assistance directly to certain end-customers. Lastly, as was 
true in prior segments of this proceeding, during the instant POR Lucky 
Medsup did not maintain inventory or further manufacture SSSS. 
Therefore, we continue to find that Chia Far is affiliated with Lucky 
Medsup by way of a principal-agent relationship.

Identifying Home Market Sales

    Section 773 (a)(1)(B) of the Act defines NV as the price at which 
foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, 
offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home 
market), in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course 
of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade 
(LOT) as the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP). In 
implementing this provision, the CIT has found that sales should be 
reported as home market sales if the producer ``knew or should have 
known that the merchandise {it sold{time}  was for home consumption 
based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the 
sales.'' See Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. & Yieh United Steel Corp. 
v. United States, et al., 25 CIT 752, 783 (2001); citing INA Walzlager 
Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 251 (1997). Where a 
respondent has no knowledge as to the destination of subject 
merchandise, except that it is for export, the Department will classify 
such sales as export sales and exclude them from the home market sales 
database. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Plate Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea, 
58 FR 37176, 37182 (July 9, 1993).
    In its September 30, 2005, questionnaire response, Chia Far stated 
that it has reason to believe that some of the home market customers to 
whom it sold SSSS during the POR may have exported the merchandise. 
Specifically, Chia Far indicated that it shipped some of the SSSS it 
sold to home market customers during the POR to a container yard or 
placed the SSSS in an ocean shipping container at the home market 
customer's request. Chia Far stated that even though the merchandise 
was containerized or sent to a container yard, it could not prove the 
merchandise was exported to a third country, and therefore, it included 
those sales in its reported home market sales. Although Chia Far stated 
that it does not definitively know whether the SSSS in question will be 
exported, the Department has preliminarily

[[Page 45527]]

determined that, based on the fact that these sales were sent to a 
container yard or placed in a container by Chia Far at the request of 
the home market customer, Chia Far should have known that the SSSS in 
question was not for consumption in the home market. Therefore, the 
Department has preliminarily excluded these sales from Chia Far's home 
market sales database.

Comparison Methodology

    In order to determine whether Chia Far sold SSSS to the United 
States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the EP and CEP 
of individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of 
the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. See 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as 
merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and 
produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject 
merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of 
the order that were produced by the same person and in the same country 
as the subject merchandise, and sold by Chia Far in the comparison 
market during the POR, to be foreign like products for the purpose of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to SSSS sold in the United 
States.
    During the POR, Chia Far sold subject merchandise and foreign like 
product that it made from hot- and cold-rolled stainless steel coils 
(products covered by the scope of the order) purchased from 
unaffiliated parties. Chia Far further processed the hot- and cold-
rolled stainless steel coils by performing one or more of the following 
procedures: cold-rolling, bright annealing, surface finishing/shaping, 
slitting. We did not consider Chia Far to be the producer of the 
merchandise under review if it performed insignificant processing on 
the coils (e.g., annealing, slitting, surface finishing). See Stainless 
Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 74495 (December 14, 2004) and the 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (listing 
painting, slitting, finishing, pickling, oiling, and annealing as minor 
processing for flat-rolled products). Furthermore, we did not consider 
Chia Far to be the producer of the cold-rolled products that it sold if 
it was not the first party to cold roll the coils. The cold-rolling 
process changes the surface quality and mechanical properties of the 
product and produces useful combinations of hardness, strength, 
stiffness, and ductility. Stainless steel cold-rolled coils are 
distinguished from hot-rolled coils by their reduced thickness, tighter 
tolerances, better surface quality, and increased hardness which are 
achieved through cold-rolling. Chia Far's cold rolling of the cold-
rolled coils that it purchased may have modified these characteristics 
to suit the needs of particular customers; however, it did not impart 
these defining characteristics to the finished coils. Thus, we 
considered the original party that cold-rolled the product to be its 
producer.
    The Department compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison 
market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from 
three months prior to the month in which the U.S. sale was made until 
two months after the month in which the U.S. sale was made. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise made in the comparison market in 
the ordinary course of trade, the Department compared U.S. sales to 
sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary 
course of trade. In making product comparisons, the Department selected 
identical and most similar foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by Chia Far in the following order of 
importance: grade, hot- or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic 
coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge. Where there 
were no appropriate sales of the foreign like product to compare to a 
U.S. sale, we compared the price of the U.S. sale to constructed value 
(CV), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    The Department based the price of Chia Far's U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise on EP or CEP, as appropriate. Specifically, when Chia Far 
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based 
on the facts of the record, we based the price of the sale on EP, in 
accordance with section 772 (a) of the Act. On the other hand, when 
Chia Far sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States after importation through its U.S. affiliate, Lucky 
Medsup, we based the price of the sale on CEP, in accordance with 
section 773(b) of the Act. Although Chia Far based the date of sale for 
its EP and CEP transactions on the order confirmation date, in response 
to questions from the Department, Chia Far reported information showing 
that the material terms of U.S. sales changed after the order 
confirmation date (e.g., ordered quantities in excess of the allowable 
variation and changes to prices). See Chia Far's January 19, 2006, at 
24, and April 5, 2006, at 1, supplemental questionnaire responses.
    Normally, the Department considers the respondent's invoice date as 
recorded in its business records to be the date of sale unless a date 
other than the invoice date better reflects the date on which the 
company establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR Sec.  
351.401(i). Given that changes to the material terms of sale occurred 
after the order confirmation date, the record does not support using 
order confirmation as the date of sale. Therefore, we have 
preliminarily used invoice date as the date of sale for Chia Far's EP 
and CEP transactions. However, consistent with the Department's 
practice, where the invoice was issued after the date of shipment to 
the first unaffiliated U.S. customer, we relied upon the date of 
shipment as the date of sale. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion 
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 12927, 12935 (March 16, 
1999), citing Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products From Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998) (``in 
these final results we have followed the Department's methodology from 
the final results of the third reviews, and have based date of sale on 
invoice date from the U.S. affiliate, unless that date was subsequent 
to the date of shipment from Korea, in which case that shipment date is 
the date of sale.'').
    In accordance with sections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act, we 
calculated EP using the prices Chia Far charged for packed subject 
merchandise, from which we deducted, where applicable, the following 
expenses: foreign inland freight (from Chia Far's plant to the port of 
exportation), brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, 
marine insurance, container handling, and harbor construction. 
Additionally, we added to the starting price an amount for duty 
drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    In accordance with sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) and (3) of 
the Act, we calculated CEP using the prices charged for packed subject 
merchandise sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States, from which we deducted the following expenses: foreign inland 
freight (from Chia Far's plant to the port of exportation), brokerage 
and handling, international

[[Page 45528]]

ocean freight, marine and inland insurance, container handling, harbor 
construction, other U.S. transportation, U.S. duty, direct and indirect 
selling (to the extent these expenses are associated with economic 
activity in the United States), and CEP profit (profit allocated to 
expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act in 
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act). We computed 
profit by deducting from total revenue realized on sales in both the 
U.S. and comparison markets, all expenses associated with those sales. 
We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. 
economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total 
expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets. Lastly, we added to 
the starting price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether comparison-market 
sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV for Chia Far as noted 
in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparisons'' 
sections of this notice.
A. Home Market Viability
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) 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 (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is 
greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared the aggregate volume of Chia Far's home market 
sales of the foreign like product to the aggregate volume of its U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise. Because the aggregate volume of Chia 
Far's home market sales of foreign like product is more than five 
percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product in the 
respondent's home market. See section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
    In the previous administrative review in this proceeding, the 
Department determined that Chia Far sold foreign like product at prices 
below the cost of producing the product and excluded such sales from 
the calculation of NV. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 7519 (February 13, 2006). As a result, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department has 
determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
during the instant POR, Chia Far sold foreign like product at prices 
below the cost of producing the product. Thus, the Department initiated 
a sales below cost inquiry with respect to Chia Far.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each foreign 
like product sold by Chia Far during the POR, we calculated a weighted-
average COP based on the sum of the respondent's materials and 
fabrication costs, selling, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, 
including interest expenses and packing costs. We made the following 
adjustments to Chia Far's cost data: (1) we set interest expenses to 
zero, (2) we used Chia Far's July 11, 2006, cost database, which 
excludes costs related to subject merchandise not produced by Chia Far, 
and (3) for the cost of subject merchandise not produced by Chia Far, 
we used, as facts available, Chia Far's costs to produce merchandise 
with characteristics identical or similar to characteristics of the 
subject merchandise not produced by Chia Far. For further information 
see Memorandum to Neal M. Halper from Laurens van Houten, Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results - Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd., dated 
concurrently with this notice.
2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices
    In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the 
COP on a product-specific basis, we compared the respondent's weighted-
average COP to the prices of its home market sales of foreign like 
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance 
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in determining whether 
to disregard home market sales made at prices less than 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. We 
compared the COP to home market sales prices, less any applicable 
movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because 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 made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time (i.e., one year) pursuant to sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on our comparison of POR average 
costs to reported prices, we also determined, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that these sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. As a result, we disregarded below-cost sales for Chia 
Far.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    Where it was appropriate to base NV on prices, we used the prices 
at which the foreign like product was first sold by Chia Far for 
consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities, in 
the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same 
LOT as the comparison U.S. sale. We excluded from our analysis Chia 
Far's home market sales of foreign like product identified by the 
Department as having been manufactured by parties other than the 
parties who manufactured the subject merchandise sold by Chia Far to 
U.S. customers during the POR.
    In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, 
where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price rebates, 
warranty expenses, movement expenses, home market packing costs, credit 
expenses and other direct selling expenses and added U.S. packing costs 
and, for NVs compared to EPs, credit expenses, and other direct selling 
expenses. Additionally, where appropriate, we made price adjustments 
for physical differences in the merchandise. See 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR Sec.  351.410(e). Finally, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale 
resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent 
of the cost of manufacturing the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
when we were unable to compare the U.S. sale to a home market sale of 
an identical or similar product. For each unique SSSS product sold to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States during the POR, we 
calculated a weighted-average CV based on the sum of the respondent's 
materials

[[Page 45529]]

and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, including interest expenses, 
packing costs, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 
the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and 
realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale 
of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for 
consumption in the home market. We based selling expenses on weighted-
average actual home market direct and indirect selling expenses. In 
calculating CV, we adjusted the reported costs as described in the COP 
section above.

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 the EP or CEP sales. The NV LOT is based on the 
starting price of the sales in the comparison market or, when NV is 
based on CV, the starting price of the sales from which we derive SG&A 
expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the 
starting price of the sales to the U.S. market. For CEP sales, the U.S. 
LOT is based on the starting price of the sales, as adjusted under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d, 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP 
and CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
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 a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP 
sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV 
under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information 
from Chia Far regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and 
comparison market sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed for each channel of distribution. Generally, if 
the reported LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the 
seller at each level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports 
that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the selling 
functions and activities of the seller for each group should be 
dissimilar.
    Chia Far reported that it sold foreign like product in the home 
market to two types of customers, distributors and end users, through 
one channel of distribution. Chia Far performed the following sales 
activities for both types of home market customers: price negotiation/
order processing, arranging freight and delivery, inventory 
maintenance, providing technical advice to customers and providing 
warranty services. See Chia Far's Section A questionnaire response at 
Exhibit A-6. Moreover, Chia Far performed corresponding selling 
functions at the same level of intensity for each type of customer. 
Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that there is one LOT in 
the home market.
    For the U.S. market, Chia Far reported that it sold to unaffiliated 
distributors directly (i.e., EP sales) and through its U.S. affiliate, 
Lucky Medsup (i.e., CEP sales). Since the Department bases the LOT of 
CEP sales on the price in the United States after making CEP deductions 
under section 772(d) of the Act, we based the LOT of Chia Far's CEP 
sales on the price after deducting U.S. selling expenses. Chia Far 
performed the following activities with respect to its EP and CEP 
sales: price negotiation/order processing, arranging freight and 
delivery, providing technical advice to customers and providing 
warranty services. See Chia Far's Section A questionnaire response at 
Exhibit A-6. Moreover, Chia Far performed corresponding selling 
functions at the same level of intensity for each sale type (i.e., EP 
or CEP sale). Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that there is 
one LOT in the U.S. market.
    To determine whether NV is at a different LOT than the U.S. 
transactions, the Department compared home market selling activities in 
the home market LOT with those for the U.S. LOT. Chia Far engaged in 
the following selling activities, and performed corresponding selling 
activities at the same or at a similar level of intensity, for both the 
home market LOT and U.S. market LOT: price negotiation/order 
processing, arranging freight and delivery, providing technical advice 
to customers, and providing warranty services. See Chia Far's Section A 
questionnaire response at Exhibit A-6. While Chia Far may have engaged 
in inventory maintenance/warehousing with respect to the LOT of its 
home market sales but not with respect to its U.S. sales, the record 
indicates that the significance of this difference is minimal. Thus, 
the Department has determined that the differences between the home and 
U.S. market LOTs are at the same level.
    In its questionnaire response, Chia Far requested a CEP offset. See 
Chia Far's Section A questionnaire response at 16. The Department will 
grant a CEP offset if NV is at a more advanced LOT than the CEP 
transactions and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability 
(e.g., a LOT adjustment is not possible because there is only one LOT 
in the home market). Here, the Department has not found the NV LOT to 
be more advanced than the CEP LOT, and thus, it has not granted Chia 
Far a CEP offset.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts 
expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determined that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 
2004, through June 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd................                0.81
Tang Eng Iron Works.................................               21.10
Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.................               21.10
PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.................................               21.10
Yieh Trading Corp. (also known as Yieh Corp.).......               21.10
Chien Shing Stainless Co............................               21.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of 
this review, we will disclose to interested parties any calculations 
performed in connection with the preliminary results. See 19 CFR Sec.  
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 
Sec.  351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after 
the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, or the 
first workday thereafter. Interested parties are invited to comment on 
the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider 
case briefs filed by interested parties within 30

[[Page 45530]]

days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Also, interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal 
briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing 
case briefs. 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, we request that 
parties submitting written comments provide the Department with an 
electronic copy of the public version of such comments. Unless the 
deadline for issuing the final results of review is extended, the 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in 
the Federal Register.

Assessment Rates

    In accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary 
results of review we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for 
Chia Far. If the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis 
(i.e., 0.50 percent ad valorem or greater), we will instruct CBP to 
assess the importer/customer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, 
on all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were entered 
by the importer or sold to the customer. For the respondents receiving 
dumping margins based upon AFA, the Department will instruct CBP to 
liquidate entries according to the AFA ad valorem rate. Within 15 days 
of publication of the final results of review, the Department will 
issue instructions to CBP directing it to assess the final assessment 
rates (if above de minimis) uniformly on all entries of subject 
merchandise made by the relevant importers during the POR.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification applies to POR entries of 
subject merchandise produced by companies examined in this review 
(i.e., companies for which a dumping margin was calculated) where the 
companies did not know that their merchandise was destined for the 
United States. 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

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise 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 rates for the companies 
examined in the instant review will be the rates established in the 
final results of this review (except that if the rate for a particular 
company is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit 
will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or 
reviewed 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 less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; 
and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters 
will continue to be the ``all others'' rate of 12.61 percent, which is 
the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. See 
Final Determination, 64 FR 30592. These cash deposit rates, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR Sec.  351.402(f)(2) to file a 
certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping 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 this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-12999 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S