[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 215 (Monday, November 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57648-57653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-274-804)


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

SUMMARY: On November 24, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Trinidad and 
Tobago for the period of review (POR) October 1, 2007, through 
September 30, 2008.
    We preliminarily determine that during the POR, ArcelorMittal Point 
Lisas Limited, and its affiliate ArcelorMittal International America 
LLC (collectively, AMPL) 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.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days 
after publication of the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Jolanta Lawska, 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-
5973 or (202) 482-8362, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and 
Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Wire Rod Orders). 
On October 1, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 
57056 (October 1, 2008).
    On October 31, 2008, we received timely request for review from 
petitioners,\1\ and AMPL, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On 
November 24, 2008, the Department published the notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 
1, 2007, through September 30, 2008, naming AMPL as the respondent. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 73 FR 70964 (November 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut 
Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries Inc., and Rocky Mountain 
Steel Mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 3, 2008, we sent the initial questionnaire covering 
sections A through D to AMPL. On January 30, 2009, AMPL submitted its 
sections A through C response to the Department's questionnaire. On 
February 20, 2009, AMPL submitted its section D response to the 
Department's questionnaire. On March 19, 2009, the Department sent to 
AMPL a supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C. We received 
the response to the supplemental questionnaire on April 16, 2009. On 
April 30, 2009, petitioners submitted comments on the April 16, 2009, 
supplemental questionnaire response from AMPL. On May 14, 2009, the 
Department issued a second supplemental section A-C questionnaire, and 
on June 4, 2009, AMPL submitted its response. The Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire for section D on June 15, 2009, and received 
the response on July 13, 2009. On August 4, 2009, the Department issued 
a second supplemental section D questionnaire, and received the 
response on August 14, 2009.
    On May 7, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the 
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative 
review from July 3, 2009, to November 2, 2009. See Carbon and Certain 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Extension of Time Limit 
for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping

[[Page 57649]]

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 21330 (May 7, 2009).

Verification

    Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, the Department conducted 
verifications of the questionnaire response submitted by AMPL in August 
and September 2009. See Memorandum to The File, ``Verification of the 
Sales Response of ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited in the Antidumping 
Review of Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago,'' 
(November 2, 2009) and ``Verification of the Cost Response of 
ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited and ArcelorMittal International 
America LLC in the Antidumping Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago,'' (November 2, 2009). The 
verification reports are available on file in the Central Records Unit 
(CRU), Room 1117 of the Department's main building.
    On October 20, 2009, the Department received a revised home market 
and U.S. market sales database based on minor corrections submitted at 
verification as well as verification findings noted in the Memorandum 
to The File, ``Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum for 
ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited,'' (November 2, 2009) (Preliminary 
Sales Calculation Memorandum), which is also available in the CRU. On 
October 20, 2009, the Department also received a revised cost database 
based on minor corrections submitted at the cost verification.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid 
cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products 
possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for 
(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball 
bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also 
excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that 
contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent 
or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more 
of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent 
of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord 
quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod 
measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional 
diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 
70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no 
non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable 
inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation 
per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) 
having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater 
than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or 
less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the 
following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more 
of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or 
less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or 
less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium.
    Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire 
bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm 
in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 
1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be 
deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, 
the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the 
same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is 
equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes 
of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the 
largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a 
direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement 
methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord 
quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that 
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
July 24, 2003.
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber 
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the 
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of 
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use 
certification for the importation of such products may be required. 
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally 
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope.
    The merchandise subject to this order are classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3000, 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 
7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091, 7213.91.3092, 721.39.3093, 
7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000, 7213.91.6010, 
7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 
7227.20.000, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 
7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6085, 
7227.90.6050, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, 
and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes,

[[Page 57650]]

the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Effective July 1, 2008, CBP reclassified certain HTSUS 
numbers related to the subject merchandise. See http://www.usitc.gov/publications/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0810chgs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), all products produced by the respondent covered by 
the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold in 
Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like 
product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, 
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter 
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the 
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade 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 above. 
Where there were no sales of similar merchandise in the home market 
made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to constructed value (CV).

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago 
were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export 
price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in 
the ``Export Price and Constructed 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. In accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act, we calculated CV when we were unable to find a 
weighted-average price at a time contemporaneous with the U.S. sales.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. We 
calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter 
outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP 
for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with 
the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made 
the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of 
the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the 
applicable terms of sale.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland 
freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance, 
other transportation expenses, and U.S. customs duties.
    For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses 
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit). In 
addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to 
economic activity in the United States. These expenses include 
inventory carrying costs incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. We 
also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 
772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
AMPL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the 
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because AMPL had an 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that 
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which 
AMPL participated, the Department found that the respondent made sales 
in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
65833 (November 5, 2008), unchanged in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 10722 (March 12, 2009). Therefore, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that AMPL made sales of wire rod in Trinidad and Tobago at prices below 
the cost of production (COP) in this administrative review. As a 
result, we initiated a COP inquiry for AMPL.

1. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative expenses, packing expenses, and interest 
expense.
a) Based on its contention that the total cost of manufacturing for 
wire rod products increased by more than 25 percent during the POR, 
AMPL reported its production costs on a quarterly basis. In our June 
15, 2009, supplemental D questionnaire, we instructed AMPL to provide 
weighted-average POR costs for each CONNUM. We also instructed AMPL to 
recalculate the quarterly costs such that only the main input driving 
the large cost changes was reported on a quarterly basis, with all 
remaining cost elements calculated on an annual average basis. Based on 
our evaluation of AMPL's revised quarterly cost file, we found that the 
change in the TOTCOM from the lowest quarter for each CONNUM to the 
highest quarter for the same CONNUM reflected a change that was below 
the 25 percent threshold. Consequently, for the preliminary results we 
used the single POR weighted-average annual costs consistent with the 
Department's standard practice. See Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
b) We disallowed AMPL's finished goods inventory adjustment to the 
reported costs because the cost of manufacturing of the merchandise 
under consideration (i.e., wire rod) must necessarily be derived based 
on the POR costs incurred and should not take into account the value of 
wire rod in beginning inventory. See Notice of Final Results of the 
Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 74 FR 22885 (May 
15, 2009), and accompanying

[[Page 57651]]

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
c) We adjusted the reported cost of iron ore to reflect the amount by 
which the cost of shipping services exceeded the transfer price paid to 
an affiliated supplier for the service.
d) We adjusted the general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio by 
disallowing an offset that AMPL took to its G&A expenses for the 
collection of a previously written off bad debt.

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices

    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales 
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing 
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.

3. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring 
during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to 
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded 
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.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    For certain comparisons, we based home market prices on packed 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted 
the starting price for inland freight pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP 
sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale 
(COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home 
market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit directly linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to 
NV were claimed or allowed.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for 
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average 
costs.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. In this review, AMPL 
did not have identical or similar comparison market sales at a time 
contemporaneous with certain U.S. sales. Accordingly, we based NV for 
these comparisons on the CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 
the CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. We based SG&A expenses and profit on the actual amounts incurred 
and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and 
sale of the foreign-like product in the ordinary course of trade for 
consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We relied on the CV data submitted by AMPL with the exception of 
the adjustments as noted in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' 
section, above. See also, Memorandum to The File, ``Cost of Production 
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results - ArcelorMittal Point Lisas Limited and ArcelorMittal 
International America LLC,'' (November 2, 2009).
    In addition, we made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 
comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses to, CV.

E. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. 
In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 
on home market), we consider the starting prices before any 
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
    In the home market, AMPL reported sales made through one LOT 
corresponding to one channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, AMPL 
reported two LOTs corresponding to two channels of distribution. AMPL 
made sales to an unaffiliated trading company and through its U.S. 
affiliates. We have determined that the sales made by AMPL directly to 
U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by AMPL's affiliated U.S. 
resellers constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have found that U.S. 
sales and home market sales were made at the same LOT. Accordingly, we 
did not find it necessary to make an LOT adjustment or CEP offset. For 
further explanation of our LOT analysis,

[[Page 57652]]

see the Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 
1, 2007, through September 30, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Producer/Manufacturer                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPL................................................              23.95%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs 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 limited 
to issues raised in the case briefs may be filed no later than 35 days 
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a 
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide 
the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any 
such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, within 
120 days of publication of these preliminary results. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rate

    The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the 
subject merchandise for each respondent. Upon issuance of the final 
results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific 
assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis 
(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
appropriate entries.
    To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period 
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or 
customer)- specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing 
this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or 
customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 
greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable 
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of 
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an 
importer (or customer)- specific ad valorem rate is greater than de 
minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
    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 the respondent for which it did not know its 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in 
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    On November 2, 2007, consistent with the Court's decision in Timken 
Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990), we published 
a notice of a Court's decision not in harmony with the final 
determination of injury by the International Trade Commission. See 
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Notice of 
Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Determination of The 
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 72 FR 62208 (November 2, 2007). This 
notice states that we will suspend liquidation of subject merchandise 
entered after July 16, 2007, pending a final and conclusive court 
decision. See id. Therefore, liquidation for entries made during the 
period October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008, is suspended 
pending a final court decision in the case involving the ITC's final 
determination of injury.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for AMPL, we divided the total 
dumping margin by the total net value for AMPL's sales during the POR.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago 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 rate for AMPL 
will be the rate 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 rate 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 this review, 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 conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the all-others rate established in 
the LTFV investigation. See Wire Rod Orders. 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 increase the 
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of 
antidumping duties reimbursed.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 57653]]


    Dated: November 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-26943 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S