[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62837-62841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-489-502]


Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe From Turkey: 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the countervailing duty (``CVD'') order on 
certain welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey for the period 
January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. We preliminarily find that 
the net subsidy rate for the company under review is de minimis. See 
the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice, infra. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 
(See the ``Public Comment'' section, infra.)

DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 7, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the CVD order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube products 
from Turkey. See Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 51 FR 7984 (March 7, 1986). On 
March 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this CVD order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 9505 (March 2, 
2007). On March 16, 2007, we received a timely request for review from 
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (``BMB''), Borusan 
Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (``Istikbal'') and their affiliates 
(collectively, the Borusan Group (``Borusan'')), a Turkish producer and 
exporter of the subject merchandise. On April 27, 2007, the Department 
initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on certain welded 
carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey, covering the period January 1, 
2006, through December 31, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27, 
2007).
    On May 1, 2007, the Department issued a questionnaire to Borusan 
and the Government of the Republic of Turkey (``the GOT''); we received

[[Page 62838]]

Borusan's and the GOT's questionnaire responses on July 5, 2007.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those 
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review 
was specifically requested. The only company subject to this review is 
Borusan. This review covers 11 programs.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel 
pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not 
over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. 
These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') as item numbers 7306.30.10, 
7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2006, 
through December 31, 2006.

Company History

    BMB was the only company in the Borusan Group that produced the 
subject merchandise during the period of review (``POR'').\1\ During 
2006, all subject merchandise sold to the United States was either sold 
directly to the U.S. customer by BMB, or first sold by BMB to Istikbal, 
the affiliated export sales company, and then resold to an unaffiliated 
U.S. customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ BMB was previously named Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari 
San ve Tic. (``BBBF''). The company's name was changed to BMB on 
December 13, 2004. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe 
from Turkey, 71 FR 43111 (July 31, 2006) (``2004 Pipe Final''), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Company 
Information'' (``2004 Pipe Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BMB's shares are majority held by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim 
Holding A.S., a holding company owned by Borusan Holding A.S.\2\ and by 
Mannesmannrohren-Werke A.G., a publicly traded company in Germany. 
Istikbal is majority-owned by Borusan Holding A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Borusan Holding A.S. is owned by the family of Asim 
Kocabiyik, the company's founder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsidies Valuation Information

Benchmark Interest Rates

    To determine whether government-provided loans under review 
conferred a benefit, the Department uses, where possible, company-
specific interest rates for comparable commercial loans. See 19 CFR 
351.505(a). Where no company-specific benchmark interest rates are 
available, as is the case in this review, the Department's regulations 
direct us to use a national average interest rate as the benchmark. See 
19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). According to the GOT, however, there is no 
official national average short-term interest rate available.\3\ 
Therefore, we have calculated the benchmark interest rate for short-
term New Turkish Lira (``YTL'') denominated loans based on short-term 
interest rate data for 2006, as reported by The Economist.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See GOT's Questionnaire Response, at 19 (July 5, 2007).
    \4\ In each issue, The Economist reports short-term interest 
data on a percentage per annum basis for select countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the benchmark, we sourced the short-term interest rate 
reported in the last weekly publication of The Economist for each 
quarter of 2006, i.e., the March 23, 2006, June 22, 2006, September 28, 
2006, and December 19, 2006, editions. We then simple averaged those 
rates to calculate an annual short-term interest rate for Turkey.\5\ We 
then compared the nominal average interest rate with the interest rates 
that the company paid against the YTL-denominated Foreign Trade 
Companies Short-Term Export Credits and Pre-Export Credits. See 
Memorandum to the File concerning the Calculations for the Preliminary 
Results of the 2006 Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, at 2 (November 1, 2007). 
This methodology is consistent with the Department's practice. See 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, 72 FR 13479 (March 22, 
2007) (``2005 Pipe Final'') (affirming methodology from the preliminary 
results, 71 FR 68550, 68551 (November 27, 2006)); see also, 2004 Pipe 
Memorandum at ``Benchmark Interest Rates'' and ``Comment 1: Benchmark 
Interest Rate for Turkish lira Loans.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The short-term YTL interest rates sourced from The Economist 
do not include commissions or fees paid to commercial banks, i.e., 
they are nominal rates. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod 
from Turkey; Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 67 FR 
55815 (August 30, 2002) (``Wire Rod''), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, at ``Benchmark Interest Rates'' (``Wire Rod 
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

A. Deduction From Taxable Income for Export Revenue
    Addendum 4108 of Article 40 of the Income Tax Law, dated June 2, 
1995, allows companies that operate internationally to claim, directly 
on their corporate income tax returns, a tax deduction equal to 0.5 
percent of the foreign exchange revenue earned from exports and other 
international activities.\6\ The income tax deduction for export 
earnings may either be taken as a lump sum or be used to cover certain 
undocumented expenses, which were incurred through international 
activities, that would otherwise be non-deductible for tax purposes 
(e.g., expenses paid in cash, such as for lodging, gasoline, and food).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These actions include construction, repair, installation, 
and transportation activities that occur abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with prior determinations, we preliminarily find that 
this tax deduction is a countervailable subsidy. See 2005 Pipe Final, 
72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552) and 2004 
Pipe Memorandum, at ``Deduction from Taxable Income for Export 
Revenue.'' The deduction provides a financial contribution within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), because it represents revenue forgone by the GOT. The 
deduction provides a benefit in the amount of the tax savings to the 
company pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act. It is also specific 
under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because its receipt is contingent 
upon export earnings. In this review, no new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances has been submitted to warrant reconsideration of 
the Department's prior findings.
    During 2006, the review period, BMB and Istikbal filed separate 
corporate income tax returns for tax year 2005. Each company utilized 
the deduction for export earnings with respect to its 2005 income 
taxes.
    The Department typically treats a tax deduction as a recurring 
benefit in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1). To calculate the 
countervailable subsidy rate for this program, we calculated the tax 
savings realized by BMB and Istikbal in 2006, as a result of the 
deduction for export earnings. We then divided that benefit by 
Borusan's total export sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the net countervailable subsidy for this program to be 0.12 
percent ad valorem.

[[Page 62839]]

B. Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term Export Credits
    The Foreign Trade Company (``FTC'') loan program was established by 
the Export Credit Bank of Turkey (``Export Bank'') to meet the working 
capital needs of exporters, manufacturer-exporters, and manufacturers 
supplying exporters. This program is specifically designed to benefit 
Foreign Trade Corporate Companies (``FTCC'') and Sectoral Foreign Trade 
Companies (``SFTC'').\7\ An FTCC is a company whose export performance 
was at least US$100 million in the previous year and whose paid in 
capital is at least YTL 2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ To promote exports and diversity in products exported, the 
GOT encouraged small and medium scale enterprises to form SFTC, 
which comprise five to ten companies that operate together in a 
similar sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To eligible applicants, the Export Bank provides short-term export 
loans directly to companies in Turkish lira or foreign currency, based 
on their prior export performance, up to 100 percent of the FOB export 
commitment. The loan interest rates are set by the Export Bank and the 
maturity of the loans is usually 180 days for YTL-denominated loans and 
360 days for foreign currency-denominated loans. To qualify for an FTC 
loan, along with the necessary application documents, a company must 
provide a bank letter of guarantee, equivalent to the loan's principal 
and interest amount, because the financing is a direct credit from the 
Export Bank. Istikbal, which has FTC status, was the only Borusan 
company to receive FTC credits during the POR.
    Consistent with previous determinations, we preliminarily find that 
these loans confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of 
section 771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429 
(affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe 
Memorandum at ``Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term Export Credits.'' 
The loans constitute a financial contribution in the form of a direct 
transfer of funds from the GOT, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. 
A benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount 
of the difference between the payments of interest that Istikbal made 
on its loans during the POR and the payments the company would have 
made on comparable commercial loans. The program is also specific in 
accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because receipt of the 
loans is contingent upon export performance. Further, the FTC loans are 
not tied to a particular export destination. Therefore, we have treated 
this program as an untied export loan program, which renders it 
countervailable regardless of whether the loans were used for exports 
to the United States. See id.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we have calculated the benefit as 
the difference between the payments of interest that Istikbal made on 
its FTC loans during the POR and the payments the company would have 
made on comparable commercial loans.\8\ In accordance with section 
771(6)(A) of the Act, we subtracted from the benefit amount the fees 
that Istikbal paid to commercial banks for the required letters of 
guarantee. We then divided the resulting benefit by Borusan's total 
export sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily find that the 
net countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.06 percent ad 
valorem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Benchmark Interest Rates,'' supra (discussing the 
benchmark rates used in these preliminary results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Pre-Export Credits
    This program is similar to the FTC credit program described above; 
however, companies classified as either FTC or SFTC are not eligible 
for pre-export loans. Under the pre-export credit program, a company's 
past export performance is considered in evaluating its eligibility for 
loans and establishing the credit limit. Specifically, to be eligible 
for a loan, a company must have exported more than $200,000 of goods in 
the prior 12-month period. Like FTC loans, the Export Bank directly 
extends to companies' pre-export loans, which are contingent upon 
export commitment. The loans, whose interest rates are set by the 
Export Bank, are denominated in either Turkish lira or foreign currency 
and have a maximum maturity of 360 and 540 days, respectively. To 
quality for a pre-export loan, along with necessary application 
documents, a company must provide a bank letter of guarantee, 
equivalent to the loan's principal and interest amount. During the POR, 
BMB paid interest against pre-export loans.
    Consistent with previous determinations, we preliminarily find that 
these loans confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of 
section 771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429 
(affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe 
Memorandum at ``Pre-Export Credits.'' The loans constitute a financial 
contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the GOT, 
under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A benefit exists under section 
771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount of the difference between the 
payments of interest that BMB made on the loans during the POR and the 
payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. 
The program is also specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of 
the Act because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export 
performance.
    Further, like the FTC loans, these loans are not tied to a 
particular export destination. Therefore, we have treated this program 
as an untied export loan program rendering it countervailable 
regardless of whether the loans were used for exports to the United 
States. See id.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we have calculated the benefit as 
the difference between the payments of interest that BMB made on its 
pre-export loans during the POR and the payments the company would have 
made on comparable commercial loans.\9\ In accordance with section 
771(6)(A) of the Act, we subtracted from the benefit amount the fees 
which BMB paid to commercial banks for the required letters of 
guarantee. We then divided the resulting benefit by Borusan's total 
export value for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily find that the 
net countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.05 percent ad 
valorem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Benchmark Interest Rates,''supra (discussing the 
benchmark rates used in these preliminary results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Program Preliminarily Determined To Not Confer Countervailable 
Benefits

A. Inward Processing Certificate Exemption
    Under the Inward Processing Certificate (``IPC'') \10\ program, 
companies are exempt from paying customs duties and value added taxes 
(``VAT'') on raw materials and intermediate unfinished goods imported 
to be used in the production of exported goods. Companies may choose 
whether to be exempted from the applicable duties and taxes upon 
importation (i.e., the Suspension System) or have the duties and taxes 
reimbursed after exportation of the finished goods (i.e., the Drawback 
System). Under the Suspension System, companies provide a letter of 
guarantee that is returned to the companies upon fulfillment of the 
export commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ During the POR, the IPC was implemented under Resolution 
No. 2005/8391. A copy of this resolution was submitted by the GOT in 
its July 5, 2007, Questionnaire Response as Exhibit 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To participate in this program, a company must hold an IPC, which 
lists the amount of raw materials/intermediate unfinished goods to be

[[Page 62840]]

imported and the amount of product to be exported. To obtain an IPC, an 
exporter must submit an application, which states the amount of 
imported raw material required to produce the finished products and a 
``letter of export commitment,'' which specifies that the importer of 
materials will use the materials to produce exported goods. There are 
two types of IPCs: a D-1 certificate and a D-3 certificate.\11\ During 
the POR, Borusan utilized D-1 certificates associated with imports of 
hot-rolled coil and zinc used in the production of carbon steel pipe 
and tube. Borusan did not utilize any D-3 certificates during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For more information on D-3 certificates, see GOT's 
Questionnaire Response, at 38-40 (July 5, 2007); 2004 Pipe 
Memorandum, at ``Inward Processing Certificate Exemption,'' and 
Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
3, from Team regarding Verification of the Questionnaire Responses 
submitted by the Government of the Republic of Turkey, at 9-12 
(March 31, 2006) (the public version of the verification report is 
available on the public file in the Department's Central Records 
Unit, room B-099).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An IPC specifies the maximum quantity of inputs that can be 
imported under the program. Under the IPC program, the value of 
imported inputs may not exceed the value of the exported products. 
Input/output usage rates listed on an IPC are set by the GOT working in 
conjunction with Turkey's Exporter Associations, which are quasi-
governmental organizations, which represent different industries. The 
input/output usage rates vary by product and industry and are 
determined using data from capacity reports submitted by companies that 
apply for IPCs. The input/output usage rates are subject to periodic 
review and verification by the GOT. The GOT uses the input/output usage 
rates to ensure that a company's expected export quantities are 
sufficient to cover the quantity of inputs imported duty-free under the 
program.\12\ Each time a company imports raw materials on a duty exempt 
basis, the company must present the IPC to Turkish customs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For more information on how waste/usage rates are set by 
the GOT, see 2004 Pipe Memorandum, at ``Inward Processing 
Certificate Exemption''; and GOT's Questionnaire Response, at 
Exhibit 5, pages 10-11 (July 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(a)(1)(ii), a benefit exists to the 
extent that the exemption extends to inputs that are not consumed in 
the production of the exported product, making normal allowances for 
waste, or if the exemption covers charges other than imported charges 
that are imposed on the input. In regard to the VAT exemption granted 
under this program, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.517(a), in the case of the 
exemption upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit exists to the extent 
that the Department determines that the amount exempted exceeds the 
amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like 
products when sold for domestic consumption.
    In prior reviews, the Department found that, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.519(a)(4)(i), the GOT has a system in place to confirm which 
inputs are consumed in the production of the exported product and in 
what amounts, and that the system is reasonable for the purposes 
intended. See 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary 
results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe Memorandum, at ``Inward 
Processing Certificate Exemption.'' During the POR, under D-1 
certificates, Borusan received duty and VAT exemptions on certain 
imported inputs used in the production of steel pipes and tubes and not 
duty or VAT refunds. There is no evidence on the record of this review 
that indicates the amount of exempted inputs imported under the program 
were excessive or that Borusan used the imported inputs for any other 
product besides those exported. Further, there is no evidence on the 
record of this review to warrant a reconsideration of the Department's 
finding that the GOT's IPC monitoring system is reasonable.
    Therefore, consistent with the 2005 Pipe Final and 2004 Pipe Final, 
we preliminarily determine that the tax and duty exemptions, which 
Borusan received on imported inputs under D-1 certificates of the IPC 
program, did not confer countervailable benefits as Borusan consumed 
the imported inputs in the production of the exported product, making 
normal allowance for waste. We further preliminarily find that the VAT 
exemption did not confer countervailable benefits on Borusan because 
the exemption does not exceed the amount levied with respect to the 
production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic 
consumption. Further, because Borusan did not import any goods under a 
D-3 certificate during the POR, we preliminarily determine that this 
aspect of the IPC program was not used.

 III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Not Be Used

    We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that 
Borusan did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs 
during the POR:

    A. VAT Support Program (Incentive Premium on Domestically Obtained 
Goods)\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Although we found this program to be terminated in Wire 
Rod, residual payments for puchases made prior to the program's 
termination were permitted. See Wire Rod Memorandum, at ``VAT 
Support Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Pre-Shipment Export Credits
    C. Post-Shipment Export Loans
    D. Pre-Shipment Rediscount Loans
    E. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit Facilities
    F. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of Fixed Expenditures
    G. Regional Subsidies.

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated a 
subsidy rate for Borusan for the period January 1, 2006, through 
December 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine that the total net 
countervailable subsidy rate is 0.23 percent ad valorem, which is de 
minimis, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c).
    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 15 days after the date of 
publication of the final results of this review. If the final results 
remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will 
instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all 
shipments of subject merchandise produced by Borusan entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2006, through 
December 31, 2006. The Department will also instruct CBP not to collect 
cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of 
the subject merchandise produced by Borusan, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review.
    CBP will continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed 
companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate 
applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that 
will be applied to companies covered by this order but not examined in 
this review, are those established in the most recently completed 
administrative proceeding for each company. Those rates shall apply to 
all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these 
rates is requested.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until further notice.

[[Page 62841]]

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public 
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary 
results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must 
be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited 
to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than 
five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise 
specified by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties 
who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the 
argument: (1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested 
to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case 
and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may 
request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and 
rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, 
if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of 
rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of 
these preliminary results.
    Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. See 19 CFR 
351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of 
arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs.
    This administrative review is issued and published in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1), 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: November 1, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-21874 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P