[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 111 (Monday, June 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32074-32077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-829]


Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by Carpenter Technology Corporation, 
a domestic interested party, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from the Republic of 
Korea (Korea). This review covers two producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise that have been collapsed for purposes of the 
Department's analysis, consistent with prior determinations in this 
proceeding. The period of review is September 1, 2005, through August 
31, 2006.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that the companies 
subject to this review made U.S. sales of SSWR at prices less than 
normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection 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: June 11, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-0410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 15, 1998, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See Notice of 
Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR 
49331 (September 15, 1998) (Amended Final Determination), and Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod From Korea: Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision, 66 FR 41550 (August 8, 
2001) (Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision). In 
September 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 52061 (September 1, 
2006).
    On September 29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR Sec.  
351.213(b)(1), Carpenter Technology Corporation requested that the 
Department conduct a review of Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. 
(Changwon), and Dongbang Special Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbang), and any of 
their affiliates (collectively, the respondent\1\) for the period from 
September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We collapsed Changwon and Dongbang in the less-than-fair-
value investigation and in every subsequent review of this order 
because we found ``a close supplier relationship between the 
entities.'' See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR 
40404, 40405 (July 29, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review 
of the respondent. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 63752 (October 31, 2006). On 
November 2, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire 
to the respondent. The respondent did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. On December 15, 2006, we sent a letter to the respondent 
requesting that it respond to our questionnaire. The respondent 
submitted no response to this letter.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). The period of review is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 
2006.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, the products covered are those SSWR 
that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or 
descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, 
that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime

[[Page 32075]]

or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or 
without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-
rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are 
normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The 
majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional 
shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless 
steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such 
products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which 
represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling 
mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to 
draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is 
between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter.
    Two stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the 
order. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The chemical makeup for the 
excluded grades is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                SF20T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon.....................................................     0.05 max
Manganese..................................................     2.00 max
Phosphorous................................................     0.05 max
Sulfur.....................................................     0.15 max
Silicon....................................................     1.00 max
Chromium...................................................  19.00/21.00
Molybdenum.................................................    1.50/2.50
Lead-added.................................................  (0.10/0.30)
Tellurium-added............................................   (0.03 min)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               K-M35FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon.....................................................    0.015 max
Silicon....................................................    0.70/1.00
Manganese..................................................     0.40 max
Phosphorous................................................     0.04 max
Sulfur.....................................................     0.03 max
Nickel.....................................................     0.30 max
Chromium...................................................  12.50/14.00
Lead.......................................................    0.10/0.30
Aluminum...................................................    0.20/0.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The products subject to the order are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order 
is dispositive.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    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, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, 
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the 
Act, the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides 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,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of that party in selecting among the facts otherwise 
available. See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 
(1994).
    By not responding to our questionnaire, the respondent withheld 
information we requested. Therefore, we have no choice but to rely upon 
the facts otherwise available in reaching our determination pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2) of the Act. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 18369 (April 11, 2005) (``because this 
company refused to participate in this administrative review, we find 
that...the use of total facts available is appropriate'') (results 
unchanged in the final); see Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination 
of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons 
From Japan, 68 FR 71072 (December 22, 2003) (``{s{time} ince UC and DNP 
withheld information requested by the Department, the Department has no 
choice but to rely on the facts otherwise available in order to 
determine a margin for these parties'') (results unchanged in the 
final). Because the respondent did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaires in those cases, the Department could not calculate an 
accurate margin.
    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
states that, if 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 Department, in reaching the applicable 
determination under section 776(b) of the Act the Department may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available. By failing to submit a 
response to the Department's questionnaire, the respondent did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability in this review. Accordingly, we 
find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure that the 
respondent will not obtain a more favorable result than had it fully 
complied with our request in this review.
    As adverse facts available, we have used the highest rate from any 
segment of the proceeding, which is a rate from the less-than-fair-
value investigation, 28.44 percent. See Notice of Amendment of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR 49331 (September 15, 
1998) (Amended Final Determination). This rate was the highest rate in 
the petition and was used as adverse facts available for Sammi Steel 
Co., Ltd. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel 
Wire Rod from Korea, 63 FR 10825 (March 5, 1998) (Preliminary LTFV); 
see also Amended Final Determination.
    When a respondent is not cooperative, like the respondent here, the 
Department has the discretion to presume that the highest prior margin 
is probative evidence of current margins. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel 
Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 
(citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc)). As stated in Rhone Poulenc, ``if it were 
not so, the {respondent{time} , knowing of the rule, would have 
produced current information showing the margin to be less.'' See Rhone 
Poulenc, 899 F.2.d at 1190. Further, as stated in Shanghai Taoen, 
``{t{time} he purposes of using the highest prior antidumping duty rate 
are to offer assurance that the exporter will not benefit from refusing 
to provide information, and to produce an antidumping duty rate that 
bears some relationship to past practices in the industry in 
question.'' Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. 
Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (Shanghai Taoen) (citing D&L Supply Co. 
v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220,1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
    Section 776(c) of the Act states that, ``{w{time} hen the 
administering authority or the Commission relies on secondary 
information rather than on information obtained in the course of an 
investigation or review, the administering authority or the Commission, 
as the case may be, shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at their 
disposal.'' Secondary information is

[[Page 32076]]

defined as ``information 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. Where the 
Department relies upon secondary information to determine adverse facts 
available, as here, section 776(c) of the Act requires that the 
Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and 
relevance of the information. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the 
Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the 
best alternative information. Id. at 869. The independent sources used 
to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. 
See 19 CFR Sec.  351.308(d) and SAA at 870. Information from a prior 
segment of this proceeding, such as that used here, constitutes 
secondary information. See, e.g., Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from 
France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003). As described further below, in accordance 
with these standards, the Department finds that the petition rate is 
relevant and reliable.
    The reliability of the adverse facts-available rate was determined 
by our corroboration of that rate in the original less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation. See Preliminary LTFV, 63 FR at 10826-7. No party 
contested the application of that rate in the investigation. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod From Korea, 63 FR 40404 (July 29, 1998). Furthermore, 
the Department has received no information to date that warrants 
revisiting the issue of the reliability of the adverse facts-available 
rate. Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the LTFV 
investigation is reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been 
judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances is present 
here.
    In addition, although the Department has the discretion to presume 
that the highest prior margin has probative value, to ``satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value,'' the 
Department has placed the margin-transaction database (i.e., the U.S. 
sales database with the margins it calculated for each transaction) for 
the respondent from the immediately prior (2004-05) administrative 
review of the order on the record of this review. See Memorandum to 
File titled ``Placing Proprietary Data from 2004-05 Administrative 
Review Record on the Record of This Administrative Review'' dated June 
1, 2007. This information demonstrates the recent pricing practices of 
the respondent.
    Although the 2004-05 margin-transaction database is not 
contemporaneous with the period of review, it is only one year removed 
from the period for this review. The 2004-05 margin-transaction 
database corroborates the margin of 28.44 percent in that a significant 
number of transactions had margins equal to or above 28.44 percent. For 
a detailed explanation on how we corroborated of the margin of 28.44 
percent, see Memorandum to File titled ``Corroboration of Adverse Facts 
Available'' dated June 1, 2007.
    Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in any 
segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 28.44 percent) is in 
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act's requirement that we 
corroborate secondary information to the extent practicable (i.e., that 
it have probative value) and we have used that rate for the respondent 
in this administrative review.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine a weighted-
average dumping margin of 28.44 percent for Changwon/Dongbang for the 
period September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006.

Public Comment

    Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of 
this review, we will disclose to interested parties any analysis 
memoranda 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 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 cited. Further, we request that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing 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

    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 rate uniformly on all entries during the period of 
review of subject merchandise that was produced or exported by 
Changwon/Dongbang. If nothing changes between this notice and the final 
results of review, the final assessment rate will be the adverse facts-
available rate of 28.44 percent.

[[Page 32077]]

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 rate for Changwon/Dongbang 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (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 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 5.19 
percent, which is the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation, as adjusted in a subsequent remand redetermination. See 
Amended Final Determination and Amended Final Determination Pursuant to 
Court Decision. These cash-deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

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 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 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: June 4, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-11246 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S