[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 245 (Friday, December 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77618-77622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30268]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-533-820)


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice 
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners,\1\ the Department of 
Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from India (``Indian Hot-Rolled''). This review covers one manufacturer 
and exporter of the subject merchandise: Essar Steel Limited 
(``Essar''). The Department has preliminarily determined that during 
the period of review (``POR''), Essar made sales of subject merchandise 
at less than normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise 
during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation 
Steel and Nucor Corporation (collectively ``petitioners'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang or James Terpstra, 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-
1168 and (202) 482-3965, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot-Rolled. See Notice of 
Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from India, 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) (``Amended Final 
Determination''). On December 3, 2007, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot-Rolled. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 
69889 (December 3, 2007). On December 31, 2007, petitioners requested 
an administrative review in the antidumping duty order on Indian Hot-
Rolled, which were produced or exported by Ispat Industries Limited 
(``Ispat''), JSW Steel Limited (``JSW''), Tata Steel Limited 
(``Tata''), and Essar. On January 28, 2008, the Department published a 
notice of initiation of antidumping duty administrative review of 
Indian Hot-Rolled for the period December 1, 2006, through November 30, 
2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 4829 
(January 28, 2008) (``Initiation Notice''). On February 25, 2008, the 
Department issued a memorandum informing the interested parties of the 
Department's intention to limit the number of companies it would 
examine in this review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the ``Act'').\2\ On February 26-27, 2008, Ispat, 
Tata, and JSW each informed the Department that they did not have 
shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR. On August 20,

[[Page 77619]]

2008, the Department published a notice extending the deadline for the 
preliminary results from September 1, 2008, to October 31, 2008. In 
this notice the Department also published its intent to rescind this 
administrative review in part with respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata. See 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of 
Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part and 
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 73 FR 49169 (August 20, 2008) 
(``Notice of Intent to Rescind and Prelim Extension'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to File, Re: ``2006-2007 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from India,'' Subject: ``Customs and Border Protection Data 
for Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' from Cindy 
Robinson, Senior Financial Analyst, through James Terpstra, Program 
Manager, and Melissa Skinner, Office Director, Office 3, AD/CVD 
Operations, dated February 25, 2008 (``Hot-Rolled Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 11, 2008, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Essar. The Department received responses to the 
original questionnaire from Essar. The Department subsequently issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Essar and received responses to the 
same.
    On September 2, 2008, the Department sent a letter to all 
interested parties inviting comment on Draft Customs Instructions 
related to the Department's intent to rescind the administrative review 
with respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata. See Memorandum to File, Re: 
``Draft Customs Instructions - Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from India,'' dated September 2, 2008. The Department did not 
receive comments from any interested party. On November 3, 2008, the 
Department published a notice of rescission of this administrative 
review in part with respect to Ispat, JSW and Tata. See Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Rescission, In 
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 65291 (November 
3, 2008).
    On October 28, 2008, the Department again extended the time period 
for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review from 
October 31, 2008, to December 12, 2008. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
63945 (October 28, 2008).

Period of Review

    The POR covered by this review is December 1, 2006, through 
November 30, 2007.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled carbon 
steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or 
greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not 
painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic 
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed 
layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a 
thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 
times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products 
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 
mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 
mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not 
less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order.
    Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum-
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free 
(``IF'')) steels, high-strength low-alloy (``HSLA'') steels, and the 
substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-
carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium 
or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to 
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, 
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination 
steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and 
aluminum.
    Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of 
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, 
over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below 
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
    1.80 percent of manganese, or
    2.25 percent of silicon, or
    1.00 percent of copper, or
    0.50 percent of aluminum, or
    1.25 percent of chromium, or
    0.30 percent of cobalt, or
    0.40 percent of lead, or
    1.25 percent of nickel, or
    0.30 percent of tungsten, or
    0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
    0.10 percent of niobium, or
    0.15 percent of vanadium, or
    0.15 percent of zirconium.
    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
     Alloy hot-rolled carbon steel products in which at least 
one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, 
e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506)).
     Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE'')/American Iron & 
Steel Institute (``AISI'') grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     United States Steel (``USS'') Abrasion-resistant steels 
(USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTSUS.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel 
covered by this order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized; 
high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel 
may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 
7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 
7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 
7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter 
under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 
7212.40.50.00, and

[[Page 77620]]

7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
Indian Hot-Rolled produced by the respondent, covered by the scope of 
the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign 
like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to Indian Hot-Rolled sold in the United States.
    Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of 
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on 
the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product 
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V 
physical characteristics reported by each respondent. Where sales were 
made in the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. 
market (theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities 
to the same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the 
respondents, before making our fair-value comparisons.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of Indian Hot-Rolled by the respondents 
to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export 
price (``EP'') to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices 
for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions, where there 
were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the 
``Cost of Production (``COP'')'' section below. See the December 12, 
2008, Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for Essar (Calculation 
Memorandum for Essar); the public version of which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of the main Department building.

Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c) of this section.'' 
During the POR, Essar produced and sold subject merchandise to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. 
Therefore, we have applied the EP methodology.
    We based EP on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for billing 
adjustments. We also made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, we made 
deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, 
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, U.S. brokerage 
and handling, and U.S. customs duties. In addition, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, when appropriate, we increased EP, by 
an amount equal to the countervailing duty rate attributed to export 
subsidies in the most recently completed administrative review of the 
countervailing duty order applicable to the POR for Essar.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold by each respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to 
permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the 
price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption 
in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade.
    Where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act, we deducted from the starting price inland freight (offset, where 
applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and packing. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c), we deducted rebates and discounts. We 
also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, 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 
commissions. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
based NV on sales at the same level of trade as the EP. See the ``Level 
of Trade'' section below.
    For purposes of calculating NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines 
``foreign like product'' as merchandise which is either (1) identical 
or (2) similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When there 
are no identical products sold in the home market, the products which 
are most similar to the product sold in the United States are 
identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are 
identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an 
adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the 
actual physical differences between the products sold in the United 
States and the home market. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.411.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined 
NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade 
(``LOT'') as the EP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were 
no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market 
sales at a different LOT.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether EP sales and NV 
sales were at different LOTs, we examine stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the customers. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales 
at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we will 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Essar reported different channels of distribution in the home 
market; however, based on our analysis of the selling functions 
performed for each channel, we found one level of trade for Essar. In 
the U.S. market, Essar reported one channel of distribution and one LOT 
for EP sales. We evaluated the core selling function categories in the 
U.S. and home market LOTs and found that each of the core selling 
functions (i.e., sales promotion, order processing, and warranty and 
technical support) were performed in both the U.S. and home markets. 
Although there are differences in the type of sales and marketing 
services provided for each market, we did not find this to be a 
material selling function distinction significant enough to warrant a 
separate LOT. 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.

[[Page 77621]]

Accordingly, there is no basis for making a LOT under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(e). For a detailed 
description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific 
LOT findings for these preliminary results, see Calculation Memorandum 
for Essar.

Cost of Production (``COP'')

A. Calculation of COP

    In the most recently completed administrative review in which Essar 
participated, the Department determined that Essar sold foreign like 
product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and 
excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 74267 (December 3, 2007) 
unchanged in the final results, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 31961 (June 5, 2008). As a result, the 
Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that during the instant POR, Essar sold foreign like product at 
prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. See section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the Department initiated a 
sales-below-cost inquiry with respect to Essar.
    We calculated a company-specific COP for Essar based on the sum of 
Essar's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, 
plus amounts for home-market selling expenses, selling, general and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and packing costs in accordance 
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We adjusted Essar's reported costs 
to reflect the actual cost of iron ore pellets obtained from its 
Hygrade Pellets division, but have denied the claimed offset to the 
reported costs for profits allegedly earned by its Steelco Gujarat 
division on services provided during the cost reporting period.

B. Test of Home-Market Prices

    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) 
of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to home market sales 
of the foreign like product and examined whether (1) within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) 
such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, 
we compared the COP to the home market prices (not including Value 
Added Tax), less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and 
rebates.

C. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we may disregard below-
COP sales in the determination of NV if these sales have been made 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and were 
not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP for at 
least six months of the POR, we determined that sales of that model 
were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of 
time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. 
Where prices of a respondent's sales of a given product were below the 
per-unit COP at the time of sale and below the weighted-average per-
unit costs for the POR, we determined that sales were not 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. In such 
cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) 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.''
    We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for Essar. We 
disregarded individual below-cost sales of a given product and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Calculation Memorandum for Essar.

Arm's-Length Sales

    Essar reported that it made sales of the foreign like product in 
the home market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV 
based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the 
price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales 
are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e., 
sales at arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
    To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared 
the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers 
net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and 
packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the 
prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 
102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for 
merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated 
party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices. See Notice 
of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020 (August 8, 
2006), and unchanged in the final results; see also Notice of Final 
Results of the Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Certain Pasta from Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007); and 
19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we found sales to the affiliated 
party that did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that 
affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. See 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course 
of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002).

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Producer/Manufacturer                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essar...............................................       2.10 [percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may 
submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 
CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after 
the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) 
a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table

[[Page 77622]]

of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). Case and rebuttal 
briefs and comments must be served on interested parties in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Further, parties submitting written comments 
are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the 
public version of any such comments on a diskette.
    An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). A 
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due 
date of the rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in the written comments, or at a 
hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rate

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of this review. 
For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India via ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the 
ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final 
results of this review is above de minimis. The final results of this 
review 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. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) 
(``Assessment Policy Notice''). 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 that the merchandise they sold to the 
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment 
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for the producer and/or exporter 
included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping 
margins for each company by the total net value for that company's 
sales during the review period.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
hot-rolled carbon steel from India entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates 
for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the 
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 
percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) 
for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer 
or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in 
these reviews, a prior review, 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 final results for 
the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter 
nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review 
or the LTFV conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 
38.72 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV. See Amended 
Final Determination. These cash 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.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 10, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. E8-30268 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S