[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25253-25261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-489-807)


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 
Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review and a new shipper review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey 
for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. We have 
preliminarily determined that certain of the producers/exporters have 
made sales below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in the final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.
    We also have preliminarily determined to revoke the antidumping 
duty order with respect to Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis 
Ticaret A.S. (collectively ``Colakoglu'') and Diler Demir Celik 
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret 
A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, ``Diler'').
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B099, 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 3, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 16549 (Apr. 3, 
2006).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on April 28, 2006, 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; Diler; Ekinciler Demir ve 
Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively 
``Ekinciler''); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. 
(Habas); and Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. and Kaptan 
Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. (collectively ``Kaptan''). As part 
of their requests, Colakoglu and Diler also requested that the 
Department revoke the antidumping order with regard to them, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b). Also, on April 28, 2006, the 
domestic interested parties, Nucor Corporation, Gerdau AmeriSteel 
Corporation and Commercial Metals Company, requested an administrative 
review for Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas pursuant to section 
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). Further, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.214(b), on April 28, 2006, the Department received a request to 
conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on rebar 
from Turkey from Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S. and Yucelboru Ihracat 
Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. (collectively ``Kroman'').
    In May 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review for 
Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kaptan and a new shipper review 
for Kroman, and we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to these 
companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 30864 
(May 31, 2006), and Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping 
Duty Review: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 71 FR 
30383 (May 26, 2006). On May 22, 2006, Kroman agreed in writing to 
waive the time limits in order for the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.214(j)(3), to conduct the new shipper review concurrently with the 
administrative review.
    In July 2006, we received responses to sections A through D of the 
questionnaire from Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas, and to 
sections A through C of the questionnaire from Kaptan and Kroman.
    Also in July 2006, the domestic interested parties requested that 
the Department initiate sales-below-cost investigations of Kaptan and 
Kroman. We initiated sales-below-cost investigations for these 
companies in August 2006. See the Memoranda to James Maeder, Director, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team, entitled, ``Petitioners' 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Kaptan Demir Celik 
Endustrisi Ve Ticaret A.S. and Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret Ve Nakliyat 
A.S.'' (``Kaptan Cost Allegation Memo'') and ``Petitioners' Allegation 
of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S. and 
Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S.'' (``Kroman Cost Allegation 
Memo''), dated August 11, 2006.
    In August 2006, we issued supplemental sales questionnaires to each 
of the six respondent companies.

[[Page 25254]]

We received responses to these questionnaires in August and September 
2006.
    In September 2006, we conducted an on-site verification of Kroman's 
sales response in Turkey. Also during this month, we received Kaptan's 
and Kroman's responses to section D of the questionnaire, and we issued 
supplemental cost questionnaires to Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and 
Habas. We received responses to the supplemental cost questionnaires 
from Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas in September and October 
2006.
    In October 2006, we issued supplemental cost questionnaires to 
Kaptan and Kroman. Also during this month, the Department postponed the 
preliminary results of this review until no later than April 30, 2007. 
See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of 
Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 71 FR 62418 (Oct. 25, 
2006).
    We received a supplemental cost questionnaire response from Kaptan 
and Kroman in November 2006.
    From November 2006 through January 2007, we issued additional 
supplemental questionnaires to each of the respondents. We received 
responses to these questionnaires from November 2006 through February 
2007.
    In February 2007, the domestic interested parties alleged that each 
of the rebar producers involved in both the administrative and new 
shipper reviews was engaged in anti-competitive practices in the home 
and U.S. markets during the period of review (POR), as evidenced by a 
2005 finding by the Turkish Government Competition Board (Competition 
Board). As a result, the domestic industry requested that the 
Department inter alia: 1) reject the responses by the producers in the 
administrative review and base the preliminary dumping margins on 
adverse facts available (AFA), and 2) determine that Kroman is 
affiliated with all Turkish rebar producers named in the Competition 
Board report and rescind the initiation of the new shipper review for 
this company. In February and March 2007, we received comments from the 
respondents on these allegations, as well as reply comments from the 
domestic industry. For further discussion, see the ``Turkish Government 
Competition Board Finding'' section below.
    In March 2007, we issued additional supplemental cost 
questionnaires to Colakoglu and Ekinciler, as well as questionnaires to 
all interested parties regarding the allegations noted above. We 
received responses to these questionnaires in April 2007.
    Also in April 2007, the domestic interested parties submitted a 
second report by the Competition Board, which they allege: 1) 
demonstrates that several of the respondents were engaged in close 
supplier relationships; and, 2) should be relied upon by the Department 
to make a finding that the respondents in this proceeding are 
affiliated.

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 these proceedings is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006.

Notice of Intent To Revoke, in Part

    As noted above, on April 28, 2006, Colakoglu and Diler requested 
revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to their sales of 
subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). These requests were 
accompanied by certifications that Colakolgu and Diler have sold the 
subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current POR and will 
not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future. Colakoglu and 
Diler further certified that they sold subject merchandise to the 
United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three 
consecutive years. Colakoglu and Diler also agreed to immediate 
reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or 
producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, 
subsequent to the revocation, they sold the subject merchandise at less 
than NV.
    Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, the Department ``may revoke, 
in whole or in part'' an antidumping duty order upon completion of a 
review under section 751(a) of the Act. While Congress has not 
specified the procedures the Department must follow in revoking an 
order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is 
described in 19 CFR 351.222. Sections 351.222(b)(1)(A) and 
351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations explain that the 
Secretary may revoke an antidumping duty order in part if the Secretary 
concludes, inter alia, that one or more exporters or producers covered 
by the order have sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities 
at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years. 
See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: 
Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 (Jan. 6, 
2000).
    We preliminarily determine that the requests from Colakoglu and 
Diler meet all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). With regard to 
the criteria of subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin 
calculations show that Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar at not less than 
NV during the current review period. See the ``Preliminary Results of 
the Review'' section below. In addition, Colakoglu and Diler sold rebar 
at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews in which 
they were involved (i.e., their dumping margins were zero or de 
minimis). See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; 
Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
in Part, 71 FR 65082 (Nov. 7, 2006), unchanged in Notice of Amended 
Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
in Part: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey, 71 FR 
75711 (Dec. 18, 2006); 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).
    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Colakoglu 
and Diler, we preliminarily determine that they sold the subject 
merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of 
the consecutive years cited by Colakoglu and Diler to support their 
requests for revocation. See the Memoranda to the file from Brianne 
Riker entitled ``Analysis of Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis 
Ticaret A.S.'s Commercial Quantities for Request for Revocation'' and 
``Analysis of Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici 
Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.'s 
Commercial Quantities for Request for Revocation,'' dated April 30, 
2007. Thus, we preliminarily find that

[[Page 25255]]

Colakoglu and Diler had zero or de minimis dumping margins for their 
last three administrative reviews and sold subject merchandise in 
commercial quantities in each of these years. Also, we preliminarily 
determine that the application of the antidumping duty order with 
respect to Colakoglu and Diler is no longer warranted for the following 
reasons: 1) the companies had zero or de minimis margins for a period 
of at least three consecutive years; 2) the companies have agreed to 
immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that they 
have resumed making sales at less than NV; and, 3) the continued 
application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Colakoglu and Diler qualify 
for revocation of the order on rebar pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), 
and that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by 
Colakolgu and Diler should be revoked. If these preliminary findings 
are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke this order in part 
for Colakoglu and Diler and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), 
terminate the suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in 
question that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after April 1, 2006, and instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits 
for such entries.
    We note that the domestic interested parties have alleged that the 
Competition Board finding should render Colakoglu and Diler ineligible 
for revocation. The Department is currently considering this argument 
and will make a decision on it no later than the final results. For 
further discussion, see the ``Turkish Government Competition Board 
Finding'' section below.

Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Kroman

    For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Kroman's 
reported U.S. sale during the POR is a bona fide sale, as required by 
19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality of the facts on the 
record. Specifically, we find that the price reported for Kroman's 
rebar sale was similar to the average unit value of U.S. imports of 
comparable rebar from Turkey during the POR. We also find that the 
quantity of the sale was within the range of shipment sizes of 
comparable goods exported from Turkey during the POR. See the 
Memorandum from Brianne Riker to the File, entitled ``Placing 
Information from the 2005-2006 Administrative Review on Rebar from 
Turkey on the Record of the New Shipper Review on Rebar from Turkey for 
Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.,'' dated April 30, 2007. Finally, we 
considered whether the importer involved in this transaction is an 
actual commercial entity, and we found no reason to doubt the 
legitimacy of the importing party involved in this new shipper review. 
See the Memorandum to James Maeder from Irina Itkin entitled, 
``Analysis of Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.'s Bona Fides As A New Shipper 
in the New Shipper Review of Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 
from Turkey,'' dated April 30, 2007, for further discussion of our 
price and quantity analysis.
    Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Department 
preliminarily finds that Kroman's sole U.S. sale during the POR was a 
bona fide commercial transaction. We note that the domestic interested 
parties have alleged that: 1) Kroman's U.S. sale is not a bona fide 
transaction because the price for this sale was not competitively set; 
and/or, 2) Kroman is not entitled to a new shipper review because it is 
affiliated with other respondents in this case. The Department is 
currently considering these arguments and, when we make a determination 
with regard to the Competition Board's reports, we will incorporate our 
analysis on this point into that determination. For further discussion, 
see the ``Turkish Government Competition Board Finding'' section below.

Turkish Government Competition Board Finding

    On February 21 and 23, 2007, the domestic interested parties 
submitted a report by the Turkish Government Competition Board 
regarding the Turkish steel industry in the administrative review and 
new shipper review, respectively. The domestic interested parties argue 
that this report demonstrates that the respondents engaged in anti-
competitive behavior prior to and during the POR by colluding with each 
other to manipulate home market and export prices and to suppress 
costs. The domestic interested parties assert that the Department 
should: (1) find that a particular market situation, a fictitious 
market, or sales outside the course of ordinary trade exist and not use 
home market sales as a basis for NV; (2) not revoke Colakoglu and Diler 
from the order due to collusive behavior; (3) find that all U.S. sales 
are not bona fide; and (4) collapse all Turkish rebar producers into a 
single entity and find that Kroman does not qualify as a new shipper 
because of affiliation with other respondents. The domestic parties 
further contend that the Department should, as a result, rescind the 
initiation of the new shipper review for Kroman and assign preliminary 
dumping margins to each of the remaining producers using AFA.
    In addition, on April 9, 2007, the domestic interested parties 
submitted a second report by the Competition Board, which they allege: 
1) demonstrates that several of the respondents were engaged in close 
supplier relationships; and 2) should be relied upon by the Department 
to make a finding that the respondents in this proceeding are 
affiliated.
    The respondents in this case have objected to the Department's 
acceptance of these submissions because, they argue: (1) it is 
inappropriate to consider antitrust findings in the context of a 
dumping proceeding; (2) the Competition Board's ruling is not final, as 
it is under appeal in the Turkish judicial system; (3) the Competition 
Board's decision and evidence should not be considered in the current 
POR because it relates to a prior period of time; and/or (4) the small 
fines that the Competition Board levied indicate that it did not 
believe that the anti-competitive behavior was significant. The 
respondents did not submit arguments regarding the domestic interested 
parties' April 9, 2007, submission.
    As a threshold matter, we have concluded that it is appropriate to 
accept the Competition Board's reports on the administrative record of 
these proceedings. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.104(a), the Competition 
Board's reports are new factual information which are, at minimum, of 
concern to these proceedings in that they address alleged collusive and 
anti-competitive behavior among members of the Turkish steel industry, 
of which rebar producers are a significant part, that may have 
influenced the costs and market prices of the respondents in these 
reviews. Accordingly, the Department acted consistently with its 
authority in accepting this information and considering it for purposes 
of the ongoing administrative and new shipper reviews. See 19 CFR 
351.104(a) and 351.301(c)(2) (authorizing the Department to consider 
information provided during the proceeding and allowing it to extend 
the time within which information may be provided during a review if it 
considers such an extension of time is warranted).
    The Department has been unable to fully address this issue in these 
preliminary results because the Competition Board's reports were placed 
on the record late in the proceedings, and there has been a large 
amount of argument submitted by both sides on the matter. Furthermore, 
the domestic interested parties submitted

[[Page 25256]]

new arguments on this point not long before issuance of these 
preliminary results. Accordingly, the Department has not yet had the 
opportunity to fully review and address all issues with regard to this 
matter. Subsequent to publication of the preliminary results, the 
Department will provide to the interested parties its preliminary 
conclusions on these issues and give them an opportunity to comment on 
those conclusions before reaching final conclusions and publishing the 
final results of these administrative and new shipper reviews.

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, as described in the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice. 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

    We used EP methodology for all U.S. sales, 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 U.S. date of sale, four of the respondents (i.e., 
Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kaptan) argued that we should use 
contract date as the date of sale for their U.S. sales in this review, 
while Diler and Kroman argued that we should base their dates of sale 
on invoice date. After analyzing the record, we determine that the 
appropriate U.S. date of sale for Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas is the 
earlier of invoice or shipment date because: (1) we previously found 
that the terms of sale (i.e., price and quantity) were changeable after 
the contract date for these respondents (see Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455, 
26458 (May 5, 2006) (04-05 Preliminary Results), unchanged in the final 
results); and, (2) we find that there were no changes in the sales 
process, customers, types of contracts, etc., between the previous 
administrative review and the current POR for these respondents. 
Further, regarding Ekinciler, we determined that the appropriate U.S. 
date of sale is contract date because, as in the previous 
administrative review, we find that the material terms of sale were set 
at the contract date, given that the terms did not change prior to 
invoicing. See id.
    Finally, regarding Kaptan and Kroman, because these companies were 
not respondents in the previous administrative review, we examined the 
contracts and invoices related to their U.S. sales. For Katpan, we 
found that the terms of sale were not set at the contract date and, 
therefore, we used the earlier of invoice or shipment date as the U.S. 
date of sale. For Kroman, we determined that there were no changes to 
the material terms of sale between the contract and invoice date and, 
therefore, we used contract date as the U.S. date of sale.

A. Colakoglu

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
loading expenses, inspection fees, demurrage expenses (offset by 
freight commission revenue, dispatch revenue, and other freight-related 
revenue), ocean freight 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 from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, and loading expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

C. Ekinciler

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight, customs overtime fees, crane charges, terminal 
charges, inspection fees, demurrage expenses (offset by despatch 
revenue), ocean freight expenses (offset by freight revenue), U.S. 
customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling 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 from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, customs overtime fees, loading charges 
(offset by despatch revenue), forklift charges, surveying expenses, and 
ocean freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added to the starting price 
an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act.

E. Kaptan

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
charges, loading expenses, inspection fees, freight commission 
expenses, demurrage commission expenses, weighing charges, and ocean 
freight expenses (offset by freight-related revenues), where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
Additionally, we added to the starting price an amount for duty 
drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

F. Kroman

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, inspection fees, ocean freight 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. Additionally, we added 
to the starting price an amount for duty

[[Page 25257]]

drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets

    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., 04-05 Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 
26459, unchanged in the final results; 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, 23993 (May 6, 2005), unchanged 
in the final results; 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), unchanged in the final results; Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not to 
Revoke in Part, 68 FR 23972 (May 6, 2003), unchanged in the final 
results.

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

    Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, and Kroman 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. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the Department's 
practice, 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) (establishing that the overall ratio calculated for an 
affiliate must be between 98 and 102 percent in order for sales to be 
considered in the ordinary course of trade and used in the NV 
calculation). Sales to affiliated customers in the home market that 
were not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis 
because we considered these sales to be outside the ordinary course of 
trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Colakoglu, 
Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas, there were reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that these respondents made home market sales at prices 
below their costs of production (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 2003-2004 administrative 
review for Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas and the 2000-2001 administrative 
review for Ekinciler). As a result, the Department initiated an 
investigation to determine whether these companies made home market 
sales during the POR at prices below their COPs.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, for Kaptan and 
Kroman, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that these 
respondents made home market sales at prices below their COP in this 
review because of information contained in the cost allegations 
properly filed by the domestic interested parties. As a result, the 
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Kaptan and 
Kroman made home market sales during the POR at prices below their 
COPs. See the ``Kaptan Cost Allegation Memo'' and the ``Kroman Cost 
Allegation Memo.''
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 
Home 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

    Because Colakoglu's financial revenue exceeded its expense, we did 
not include an amount for financial expense in the calculation of COP 
or constructed value (CV). 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 Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
26455, 26460 (May 5, 2006) (04-05 Preliminary Results), unchanged in 
the final results; 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 
this adjustment, see the Memorandum from LaVonne Clark to Neal Halper 
entitled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and 
Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S.,'' dated April 30, 2007.

B. Diler

    1. We applied the transactions disregarded rule under section 
773(f)(2) of the Act to the billets purchased through an affiliated 
reseller. As a result, we adjusted Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm 
Ticaret A.S.'s (Yazici Demir's) fixed and variable costs of 
steelmaking.
    2. We adjusted the reported G&A expenses for Yazici Demir to 
exclude an offset for an income item related to an affiliated party 
because the income was associated with Yazici Demir's investment 
activities.
    3. We adjusted the reported G&A expenses for Diler Demir Celik 
Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Diler

[[Page 25258]]

Demir) to include the cost of POR donations.
    4. We adjusted the respective cost of sales figure used as the 
denominator for G&A and financial expense rate calculations by 
excluding the costs of byproduct merchandise sold during the 2005 
fiscal year for Yazici Demir and Diler Demir.
    5. Because Diler's financial revenue exceeded its expense, we did 
not include an amount for financial expense in the calculation of COP 
or CV. See 04-05 Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26460; Lumber from 
Canada at Comments 9 and 25.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from 
Angela Strom 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 Tursizm 
Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.,'' dated April 30, 2007.

C. Ekinciler

    1. We adjusted Ekinciler's G&A expense ratio to include the actual 
expenses charged by its parent company (i.e., Ekinciler Holding) for 
direct services and allocated Ekinciler Holding's residual G&A expenses 
(i.e., those G&A expenses not charged to a subsidiary) to each 
subsidiary, including Ekinciler, based on the proportion of each 
subsidiary's cost of sales (COS).
    2. We recalculated Ekinciler's fiscal year-end 2005 depreciation 
expenses for assets with remaining useful lives to be based on the 
stated depreciation rates reported in Ekinciler's general assets 
ledger.
    3. We have excluded the COS for scrap and defective billets from 
the COS denominator in calculating the G&A and financial expense 
ratios.
    4. We adjusted Ekinciler's fixed overhead expense to include the 
amortization of certain proprietary assets.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from 
Laurens van Houten to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - 
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S.,'' dated April 30, 2007.

D. Habas

    1. We adjusted the reported cost of raw materials to include import 
duties that were not collected by the Turkish government due to the 
subsequent re-exportation of the material and the claimed duty drawback 
adjustment.
    2. Because Habas' financial revenue exceeded its expense, we did 
not include an amount for financial expense in the calculation of COP 
or CV. See 04-05 Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26460; Lumber from 
Canada at Comments 9 and 25.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from 
Gina Lee 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 April 30, 2007.

E. Kaptan

    We adjusted the reported cost of raw materials to include import 
duties that were not collected by the Turkish government due to the 
subsequent re-exportation of the material and the claimed duty drawback 
adjustment. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the 
Memorandum from Trinette Boyd to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results - Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. and 
Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S.,'' dated April 30, 2007.

F. Kroman

    1. We adjusted the reported cost of raw materials to include import 
duties that were not collected by the Turkish government due to the 
subsequent re-exportation of the material and the claimed duty drawback 
adjustment.
    2. We adjusted the net financial expense rate to: (1) exclude 
offsets for investment-related gains and losses by adding them to the 
reported net interest expense; and, (2) correct mathematical errors 
contained in Kroman's calculation.
For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Memorandum from 
Frederick Mines to Neal Halper entitled, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - 
Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S.and Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama 
A.S.,'' dated April 30, 2007.
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, 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 determined 
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 Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman, 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

[[Page 25259]]

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. Five of the respondents 
(Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman) 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 
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). Similar to their home 
market channels of distribution, five of these respondents reported 
direct sales to U.S. customers, while one respondent (Colakoglu) 
reported that it made all of its U.S. sales through an affiliated party 
in the United States. Regarding these latter sales, we have classified 
them as EP transactions, in accordance with our practice, because 
evidence on the record demonstrates 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. See 
04-05 Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26461, unchanged in the final 
results.
    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 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. 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 all of the 
respondents made all sales at a single marketing stage (i.e., at one 
LOT) in the home market.
    Regarding U.S. sales, each of the respondents reported that it only 
made sales to one customer category through one channel of distribution 
in the U.S. market and, thus, identical selling functions were 
performed for all sales. Therefore, after analyzing the data on the 
record with respect to these functions, we find that the respondents 
made all sales at a single marketing stage (i.e., one LOT) in the U.S. 
market.
    Although each of the respondents provided certain additional 
services for U.S. sales and not home market sales, we did not find 
these differences to be material selling function distinctions 
significant enough to warrant a separate LOT for any respondent. 
Therefore, after analyzing the selling functions performed in each 
market, we find that the distinctions in selling functions are not 
material and thus, that the home market and U.S. LOTs are the same. 
Accordingly, we determined that sales in the U.S. and home markets 
during the POR for each respondent were made at the same LOT, and as a 
result, no LOT adjustment is warranted for any of the respondents.

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 (YTL) price adjusted for kur 
farki (i.e., an adjustment to the YTL invoice price to account for the 
difference between the estimated and actual YTL 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 YTL-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 04-05 Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 26461, 
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 an adjustment 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 YTL 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 an adjustment 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 YTL 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, where appropriate, we made deductions 
for

[[Page 25260]]

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, and exporter association fees. 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 an adjustment 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 YTL 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, and exporter association fees. 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 an adjustment 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).
5. Kaptan
    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. 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, bank fees, exporter association fees, and commissions. 
Regarding commissions, Kaptan 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 an adjustment 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).
6. Kroman
    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 YTL 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, 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 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 an adjustment 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, 2005, through March 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter             Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu                 0.13 (de minimis)
 Dis Ticaret A.S.........................
Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret                0.16 (de minimis)
 A.S./ Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve
 Turizm Ticaret A.S./ Diler Dis Ticaret
 A.S.....................................
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./                               3.70
 Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S...............
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal                  0.22 (de minimis)
 Endustrisi A.S..........................
Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret                            0.00
 A.S./ Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve
 Nakliyat A.S............................
Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S./ Yucelboru                                0.00
 Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    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. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 
are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the 
issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and, (3) a table of 
authorities. In addition, we note that we will provide interested 
parties with an opportunity to submit comments pertaining to our 
preliminary conclusions on the Competition Board's report once such 
conclusions are reached.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import

[[Page 25261]]

Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication 
of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address 
and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) a list 
of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 
hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. 
The Department will issue the final results of the administrative and 
new shipper reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Assessment

    Upon completion of the administrative and new shipper reviews, the 
Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The 
Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the 
companies subject to these reviews directly to CBP 15 days after the 
date of publication of the final results of this review.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by Colakoglu, 
Habas, Kaptan, and Kroman, as well as for certain sales made by 
Ekinciler, 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 all of Diler's and certain 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 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.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by these reviews if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of these reviews is 
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 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). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
    We are preliminarily revoking the order with respect to Colakoglu's 
and Diler's exports of subject merchandise. If these revocations become 
final, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation 
for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after April 1, 2006, and to refund all cash 
deposits collected.
    The final results of these reviews shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
the final results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated 
duties, where applicable.
    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. 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 the administrative and new shipper reviews, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate 
for each specific company listed above will be that established in the 
final results of these reviews, except if the rate is less than 0.50 
percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) 
for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in 
these reviews, 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 these reviews or the original 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 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 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

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), 751(a)(2)(B)(iv), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as 
well as 19 CFR 351.214(i), 351.221(b)(4), and 351.222(f)(2)(iv).

    Dated: April 30, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-8583 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S