[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 28 (Monday, February 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6522-6524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-485-803)


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Final Partial Rescission: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon 
steel plate (``cut-to-length plate'') from Romania. The review covers 
Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (``MS Galati'') a Romanian producer/exporter 
of the subject merchandise. This administrative review also covers 
Metalexportimport SA (``MEI''), an unaffiliated exporter for which the 
Department is rescinding this review. The period of review is August 1, 
2004, through July 31, 2005.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2007

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or John Drury, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 
482-0195, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 11, 2006, the Department published the preliminary 
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
cut-to-length plate from Romania. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 71 FR 53377 (September 
11, 2006) (``Preliminary Results''). We invited interested parties to 
comment on the Preliminary Results.
    On October 11, 2006, we received case briefs from MS Galati and the 
domestic interested party IPSCO Steel Inc. (``IPSCO''). Additionally, 
on October 11, 2006, we received a letter from petitioner, Nucor 
Corporation (``Nucor''), stating its support for the case brief filed 
by IPSCO. We received rebuttal briefs from IPSCO, Nucor, and MS Galati 
on October 18, 2006. On October 11, 2006, MS Galati requested a public 
hearing in this review, but withdrew its request on October 20, 2006. 
Therefore, no public hearing was held.

Final Partial Rescission

    We preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to 
MEI because we found during verification that MEI is not the producer 
of subject merchandise, MEI does not take title to the merchandise 
which MS Galati exports through MEI, and MS Galati has knowledge of the 
destination of its subject merchandise exports. See Preliminary 
Results. No parties commented on this issue. Therefore, we have 
received no new information or evidence of changed circumstances that 
would cause the Department to reconsider that determination. Thus, we 
are finally rescinding the administrative review with respect to MEI.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel 
universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces 
or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not 
exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 
millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of 
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether 
or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic 
substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in 
straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, 
plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or 
coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters 
or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and 
measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the 
HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 
7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 
7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 
7212.50.0000. Included under this order are flat-rolled products of 
nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-
70 plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
(``Decision Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A 
list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to 
this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records 
Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in 
content.

[[Page 6523]]

Use of Facts Available

    As further discussed below, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the 
Act, the Department finds that the use of facts available (``FA'') is 
appropriate with regard to MS Galati's inland freight from the plant to 
the port of exportation expenses for its U.S. sales. Section 776(a)(2) 
of the Act, provides that, if an interested party: (A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to 
provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department 
must inform the interested party of the nature of any deficiency in its 
response and, to the extent practicable, allow the interested party to 
remedy or explain such deficiency.
    We find that pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the 
application of FA is warranted for the calculation of MS Galati's 
inland freight expense because MS Galati provided information that 
could not be fully verified. In MS Galati's section C questionnaire 
response, it provided data for its inland freight to port expenses 
(field DINLFTP1U in the U.S. market sales database). Prior to 
verification, the Department requested, at page 13 of its verification 
outline, that MS Galati be prepared to provide documentation to support 
its inland freight to port calculation. During verification, MS Galati 
stated that it was unable to segregate the freight charges for one of 
its transportation providers because the provider issued invoices to MS 
Galati that were not itemized. See Memorandum to the File from John 
Drury and Dena Crossland, Case Analysts, Regarding Verification of the 
Home Market and U.S. Sales Responses of Mittal Steel Galati S.A. in the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 31, 2006, at 37 (``MS Galati 
Verification Report''). MS Galati submitted tables showing a schedule 
of expected rates but could not confirm that it paid those rates as 
reported in the U.S. sales database.
    At verification, MS Galati explained that the freight rates charged 
by its transportation companies vary by distance to the delivery point, 
and are also based on various discounts from the base price. MS Galati 
stated that rail shipments contain multiple products and go to multiple 
destinations. Therefore, unless the transportation company itemizes the 
bill, MS Galati cannot determine the actual rate paid for freight. 
While we were able to verify the freight rates for one transportation 
company, we were unable to verify the freight rates for another 
transportation company that issued invoices to MS Galati without 
segregating the charges. In the Preliminary Results, we applied the 
base freight rate for the transportation company that did not provide 
itemized invoices to MS Galati.
    In its October 11, 2006, case brief, MS Galati argued that it was 
not charged the base freight rate, as shown in Verification Exhibit 33, 
which the Department used in the Preliminary Results. In its case 
brief, MS Galati demonstrated that it had paid a certain discounted 
rate. Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, we determine that 
this discounted rate is the appropriate FA rate to calculate DINLFTP1U 
for sales involving MS Galati's second transportation company.
    Based on the above, we find that MS Galati did not provide 
information pertaining to its inland freight to port expenses that 
could be fully verified, within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(D) of 
the Act. Additionally, MS Galati has not met the requirements of 
section 782(d) because it did not provide information to the Department 
to indicate that its inland freight expenses might be deficient until 
verification. Because the Department did not find that there were any 
deficiencies until verification, it was too late to notify MS Galati of 
these errors, obtain new data, and examine such methodologies and data 
for deficiencies.
    Since MS Galati provided information that could not be fully 
verified, the Department determines that the application of FA is 
warranted. However, we cannot conclude that MS Galati did not cooperate 
to the best of its ability. As such, the Department determines that 
adverse FA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is not warranted. Even 
though information provided by MS Galati regarding transportation 
expenses was unverifiable because one of MS Galati's transportation 
companies did not provide itemized invoices, MS Galati did provide all 
the information it possessed as it related to transportation expenses, 
i.e., it acted to the best of its ability. Therefore, we are applying 
the only discounted rate that could be verified for one of MS Galati's 
transportation companies as the FA rate for calculating the inland 
freight to port expense for MS Galati's U.S. sales. For a detailed 
analysis of the Department's decision to apply FA, see the Analysis 
Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Romania, dated January 9, 2007 (``Final Analysis Memo'').

Final Results of Review:

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following margin 
exists for the period of August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Producer                        Margin (Percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mittal Steel Galati S.A...................     0.05 percent (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the 
rate indicated above. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these 
final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping 
Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (``Assessment-Policy Notice''). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
period of review produced by MS Galati for which MS Galati did not know 
that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the 75.04 percent all-others rate if there is no rate for the 
intermediary involved in the transaction. See the Assessment-Policy 
Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

[[Page 6524]]

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of cut-to-length plate from Romania entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of 
these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) for 
the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be zero; 
(2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in 
this review but covered in the investigation, the cash deposit rate 
will continue to be the company-specific rate from the final 
determination; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review 
or the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will 
be that established for the producer of the merchandise for the most 
recent period; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a 
firm covered in this review or the investigation, the cash deposit rate 
will be 75.04 percent, the ``Romania-wide'' rate established in the 
less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f)(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 in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: February 2, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary forImport Administration.

Appendix I

List of Issues in the Decision Memorandum

Issue I. Date of Sale
Issue II. Application of Facts Available for Inland Freight to Port 
Rate
Issue III. Provisions for Contingent Liabilities
Issue IV. Short-term Interest Income Offset
Issue V. Clerical Error Regarding the Constructed Export Price Offset
Issue VI. Assessment Rate Methodology
[FR Doc. E7-2216 Filed 2-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S