[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 217 (Friday, November 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66218-66221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination To 
Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 5, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars 
(rebar) from Turkey. This review covers four producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is 
April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received and on our 
verification findings, we have made certain changes in the margin 
calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary 
results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed 
firms are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of 
Review.''
    Finally, we have determined to revoke the antidumping duty order 
with

[[Page 66219]]

respect to Turkish rebar produced and exported by Habas Sinai ve Tibbi 
Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas).

DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-3874.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The administrative review covers the following four producers/
exporters: Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./Ekinciler Dis Ticaret 
A.S. (Ekinciler); Habas; Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (IDC); and 
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik, A.S./Nursan Dis Ticaret A.S 
(Nursan).
    On May 5, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the 2006-2007 administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. See Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part, 73 FR 
24535 (May 5, 2008) (Preliminary Results). Also in May 2008, the 
Department verified the sales responses of Ekinciler and Habas.
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results. In July 
2008, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the domestic industry, 
Ekinciler, and Habas. The Department convened a hearing in this review 
on August 26, 2008.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

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 this order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.

Determination To Revoke Order, in Part

    The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty 
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While 
Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must 
follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure 
for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation 
requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit 
the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the 
subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current 
review period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at 
less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold 
commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States 
in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and (3) an 
agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department 
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject 
merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of 
such a request, the Department will consider: (1) Whether the company 
in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a 
period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the company has 
agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long 
as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department 
concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the 
subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) whether the continued 
application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i).
    On April 27 and 30, 2007, respectively, Ekinciler and Habas 
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: (1) Ekinciler 
and Habas 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; and (2) they sold subject merchandise to the United States in 
commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. 
Ekinciler and Habas 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. Our 
analysis of each company's revocation request is presented below.

1. Ekinciler

    Regarding Ekinciler, we do not find that its request for revocation 
meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). Specifically, we 
find that Ekinciler has sold rebar at less than NV in the two previous 
administrative reviews in which it was involved (i.e., its dumping 
margins were above de minimis). See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review and Determination to Revoke in Part, 72 
FR 62630 (Nov. 6, 2007) (2005-2006 Final Results) and Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082 (Nov. 7, 
2006) (2004-2005 Final Results), 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) (2004-2005 Amended Final Results).
    Ekinciler contends that it is entitled to revocation in this 
segment of the proceeding, based on its claim that it anticipates that 
it will receive a zero or de minimis margin for the prior reviews, 
following completion of the court's review of Ekinciler's appeal of the 
final results. However, it is not the Department's policy to take 
pending court appeals into account when determining whether revocation 
of the merchandise produced and exported by a particular company from 
an existing antidumping duty order is warranted. See, e.g., Certain 
Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Notice of Revocation (in Part), 59 FR 15159, 
15166 (Mar. 31, 1994); Color Television Receivers from the Republic of 
Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 
4408, 4414 (Feb. 6, 1996). While we acknowledge that the Department's 
determinations in the two prior segments of this proceeding are 
currently in litigation, there is no final and conclusive judgment from 
any court supporting Ekinciler's arguments. In fact, the Court of 
International Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department's analysis in the 
2004-2005 review which resulted in a dumping margin above de minimis

[[Page 66220]]

for Ekinciler. See Ekinciler Demir v. United States, 32 Slip Op. 2008-
34 (CIT, March 20, 2008) (currently on appeal). The CIT's decision in 
that case supports our conclusion that Ekinciler continued to dump 
subject merchandise during the last three years, and Ekinciler has 
provided no information on the record to undermine that conclusion. 
Therefore, we determine that Ekinciler does not 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 Ekinciler 
should not be revoked.

2. Habas

    We have determined that the request from Habas meets all of the 
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria of 
subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show 
that Habas sold rebar at not less than NV during the current review 
period. In addition, Habas sold rebar at not less than NV in the two 
previous administrative reviews in which it was involved (i.e., its 
dumping margins were zero or de minimis). See 2005-2006 Final Results, 
and 2004-2005 Final Results, unchanged in 2004-2005 Amended Final 
Results.
    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Habas, we 
determine that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States in 
commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by it to 
support its request for revocation. See the April 29, 2008, Memorandum 
to the File from Irina Itkin entitled, ``Analysis of Habas Sinai ve 
Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.'s Commercial Quantities for 
Request for Revocation.'' Thus, we find that Habas had zero or de 
minimis dumping margins for its last three administrative reviews and 
sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of these 
years. Also, we find that application of the antidumping duty order to 
Habas is no longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) Habas had 
zero or de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive 
years; (2) Habas has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if 
the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; 
and (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise 
necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we find that Habas qualifies 
for revocation of the antidumping duty order on rebar under 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2). Accordingly, we are revoking the order with respect to 
subject merchandise produced and exported by Habas. For further 
discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum (the Decision Memo) 
at Comment 1.

Effective Date of Revocation

    The revocation of Habas applies to all entries of subject 
merchandise that are produced and exported by Habas, and are entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2007. 
The Department will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all 
such entries and will instruct U.S. Customer and Border Protection 
(CBP) to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department will 
further instruct CBP to refund with interest any cash deposits on 
entries made on or after April 1, 2007.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether Ekinciler and Habas made home market 
sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their 
costs of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following 
the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results, except as discussed 
in the Decision Memo. We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's 
sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices 
less than the weighted average COP for this period. Thus, we determined 
that these below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the 
normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B)-(D) of the Act.
    Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that 
Ekinciler and Habas made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of 
trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and 
used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV pursuant to 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in 
the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which 
is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations 
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit, room 1117, of the main Department building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ gov/frn/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis findings at verification, we have made 
certain changes in the margin calculations. Specifically, we based our 
margin calculations for both respondents on sales databases submitted 
at our request after verification, and we revised the 2005/2006 
depreciation expense calculation for Ekinciler related to certain 
capitalized assets. These changes are discussed in detail in the 
relevant sections of the Decision Memo.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages 
exist for the period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./Ekinciler Dis Ticaret          2.75
 A.S.......................................................
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S.......         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                 percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S...............................         2.75
Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik, A.S./Nursan Dis Ticaret          2.75
 A.S.......................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
for all 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.
    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we 
have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the 
cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual 
review excluding any which are de minimis or determined entirely on 
AFA.
    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). The 
Department intends to issue

[[Page 66221]]

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
these final results of review.
    Because we have revoked the order with respect to subject 
merchandise produced and exported by Habas, 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, 2007, and to refund all cash deposits collected.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by companies included in these final 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of rebar from Turkey (except shipments from Habas, as 
noted above) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the publication date of the final results of this 
administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the 
rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit 
will be zero; (2) for previously investigated 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, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the 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 deposit 
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.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1), 751(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: November 3, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

Company-Specific Issues

    1. Unreported Home Market Sales for Habas.
    2. Cost Calculation Period for Ekinciler.
    3. Depreciation Expenses for Ekinciler.

 [FR Doc. E8-26623 Filed 11-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P