[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 973-977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-810]


Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping 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 antidumping duty order on certain welded 
stainless steel pipes (WSSP) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the 
period of review (POR) December 1, 2007 through November 30, 2008. The 
review covers one respondent, SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH).
    We preliminarily determine that sales made by SeAH have been made 
at below normal value (NV). If the preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 
entries of SeAH's merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on the preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Phelps or 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-
0656 or (202) 482-3874, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In December 1992, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain WSSP from Korea. See Antidumping 
Duty Order and Clarification of Final Determination: Certain Welded 
Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea, 57 FR 62301 (Dec. 30, 1992), as 
amended in Notice of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea, 
60 FR 10064 (Feb. 23, 1995) (Amended Final Determination and Order). On 
December 1, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order of WSSP from Korea for the period December 1, 
2007, through November 31, 2008. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 72764 (Dec. 1, 2008).
    On December 29, 2008, the Department received a timely request from 
SeAH, in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), for an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on WSSP from Korea. On February 2, 
2009, the Department published, in the Federal Register, the notice of 
initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order 
on WSSP from Korea for SeAH. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 74 FR 5821 (Feb. 2, 2009).
    In February 2009, the Department issued the antidumping duty 
questionnaire to SeAH. SeAH timely submitted its response to section A 
of the questionnaire (i.e., the section relating to general information 
about the company) on March 20, 2009, and its responses to sections B 
through D of its questionnaires (i.e., the sections relating to sales 
to the home and U.S. markets and cost information) on April 20, 2009.
    In August 2009, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.212(h)(2), we extended the deadline for the preliminary 
results of this review by 120 days until no later than December 31, 
2009. See Welded

[[Page 974]]

ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Extension 
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 39045 (Aug. 5, 2009).
    During the period August 2009 through December 2009, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires to SeAH. We received responses to these 
questionnaires from September 2009 through December 2009.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is welded 
austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets the standards and 
specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated 
ASTM A-312. The merchandise covered by the scope of the order also 
includes austenitic welded stainless steel pipes made according to the 
standards of other nations which are comparable to ASTM A-312.
    WSSP is produced by forming stainless steel flat-rolled products 
into a tubular configuration and welding along the seam. WSSP is a 
commodity product generally used as a conduit to transmit liquids or 
gases. Major applications for steel pipe include, but are not limited 
to, digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical 
stock lines, brewery process and transport lines, general food 
processing lines, automotive paint lines, and paper process machines. 
Imports of WSSP are currently classifiable under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 
7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065, and 
7306.40.5085. Although these subheadings include both pipes and tubes, 
the scope of the antidumping duty order is limited to welded austenitic 
stainless steel pipes. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes. However, the written description of 
the scope of the order is dispositive.

Normal Value Analysis

    In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, to determine 
whether sales of WSSP from Korea were made in the United States at less 
than NV, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as 
described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice.

Product Comparisons

    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold by the respondent in the home 
market during the POR as described in the ``Scope of the Order'' 
section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of 
trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales.
    In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we first 
attempted to compare products produced by the same company and sold in 
the U.S. and home markets that were identical with respect to the 
following characteristics: Specification and grade, hot or cold finish, 
size, wall thickness schedule, and end finish. Where there were no home 
market sales of foreign like product that were identical in these 
respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, in accordance 
with section 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, we compared U.S. products 
with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the 
characteristics listed above, in that order of priority.

Constructed Export Price

    Pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, for sales to the United 
States, we preliminarily determine that all of SeAH's U.S. sales are 
CEP sales because all sales of subject merchandise to the United States 
were made by Pusan Pipe America (PPA), SeAH's U.S. sales subsidiary, to 
an unaffiliated customer in the United States. We based CEP on the 
packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United 
States. To establish CEP, where appropriate, we made net price 
adjustments, as defined by 19 CFR 351.102(b)(38), to PPA's starting 
price to account for early payment discounts, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.401(c). We made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2) of the Act; these adjustments included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, marine insurance, U.S. 
brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. customs duties. For further 
discussion of the changes made to SeAH's reported U.S. sales data, see 
the December 31, 2009, memorandum from Holly Phelps, Analyst, to the 
File, entitled ``Calculations Performed for SeAH Steel Corporation for 
the Preliminary Results in the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from 
Korea'' (SeAH Prelim Calc Memo).
    In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act, we also 
deducted, where applicable, those selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, including U.S. 
direct selling expenses (i.e., warranty and imputed credit expenses), 
and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs and 
other indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(d), we calculated the 
CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by SeAH and its U.S. 
affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United 
States and the profit associated with those sales.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 
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, 
in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent practicable, at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP sale. See ``Level of Trade'' 
section, below. After testing home market viability and whether home 
market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV for SeAH as 
discussed in the following sections.

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of SeAH's home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Based on this 
comparison, we determined that SeAH had a viable home market during the 
POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404(b).

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    During the POR SeAH made sales of WSSP in the home market to an 
affiliated party, as defined in section 771(33) of the Act. 
Consequently, we tested these sales to ensure that they were made at 
arm's-length prices, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test 
whether the sales to the affiliate were made at arm's-length prices, we 
compared the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and 
packing expenses.

[[Page 975]]

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the Department's 
practice, where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, 
within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or 
comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same 
LOT, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at 
arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing 
that the overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 
and 102 percent, inclusive, of prices to unaffiliated customers in 
order for sales to that affiliate to be considered in the ordinary 
course of trade and used in the NV calculation). Sales to affiliated 
customers in the home market that were not made at arm's-length prices 
were excluded from our analysis because we considered these sales to be 
outside the ordinary course of trade. See section 771(15) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.102(b).

C. 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 home market 
at the same LOT as CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are 
made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a 
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is 
a difference in the stages of marketing. Id; see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 
1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to determine whether the home 
market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the 
U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., 
the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of 
customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for 
each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for export price (EP) and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either home market or third country prices),\1\ 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 Tech., 
Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine 
the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive 
selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it possible, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was possible), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, e.g., Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 
61732-33.
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information 
from SeAH regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and home 
market sales, including a description of the selling activities 
performed for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported 
LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller at each 
level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs are 
different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and 
activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar.
    In the current review, SeAH reported that it made sales through a 
single channel of distribution in the home market (i.e., direct sales 
to affiliated and unaffiliated customers). SeAH reported performing the 
following selling functions for its home market sales: Sales 
negotiation, sales personnel training, sales promotion, order input/
processing, invoicing, collection of payment, sales forecasting, sales 
marketing support, market research, freight/delivery, warehouse 
operations, and inventory maintenance. These selling activities can be 
generally grouped into three selling function categories for analysis: 
(1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and delivery; and (3) inventory 
management.
    Accordingly, based on the selling functions noted above, we find 
that SeAH performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, 
and inventory management services for home market sales. Because all 
home market sales are made through a single distribution channel and 
the selling activities to SeAH's customers do not vary within the 
channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home 
market for SeAH.
    With respect to the United States, SeAH reported that it made sales 
through one channel of distribution (i.e., CEP sales via an affiliated 
reseller) and that the selling functions were performed at a lower 
level of intensity than in the home market. We examined the selling 
functions performed for U.S. sales and found that SeAH performed the 
following selling functions: order input/processing, invoicing, 
collection of payment, freight/delivery, and inventory maintenance. 
These selling activities can be generally grouped into three selling 
function categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight 
and delivery; and (3) inventory management.
    Accordingly, based on the selling functions, we find that SeAH 
performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, warranty 
and technical services, and inventory management for all U.S. sales. 
Because all U.S. sales are made through a single distribution channel 
and the selling activities to SeAH's affiliated reseller do not vary 
within the channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT to 
the U.S. market for SeAH.
    SeAH stated that its U.S. sales were made at a different, less 
advanced LOT than its home market sales. SeAH is not seeking a LOT 
adjustment, however, because it had only one LOT in the home market. 
Instead, it claims that a CEP offset is warranted. As a result, we 
compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling 
functions performed for U.S. and home market customers differ, as SeAH 
did not perform identical selling functions in both markets, and the 
selling functions for sales in the home market are at a greater 
intensity than for sales to the United States. Specifically, we 
determine that differences in sales negotiation, sales personnel 
training, warehousing, and advertising exist between sales to home 
market and U.S. customers. See SeAH's September 10, 2009, section A 
supplemental response at page 5 and Exhibit A-37.
    In this case, because SeAH sold at one LOT in the home market, 
there is no basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of 
consistent price differences between LOTs. Therefore, we have not made 
a LOT adjustment.
    Instead, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we 
preliminarily determine that a CEP offset is appropriate to reflect 
that SeAH's home market sales are at a more advanced stage than the LOT 
of SeAH's CEP sales. We based the amount of the CEP offset on home 
market indirect selling

[[Page 976]]

expenses and limited the deduction to the amount of the indirect 
selling expenses deducted from CEP under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the 
Act. We applied the CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons.

D. Cost of Production Analysis

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for SeAH there 
were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that SeAH made home 
market sales at prices below its cost of production (COP) in this 
review because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the 
cost test for SeAH in the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding in which SeAH participated (i.e., the 1997-1998 
administrative review) at the time of the initiation of this 
administrative review. See Certain Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel 
Pipe from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 72645, 72647 (Dec. 28, 1999), unchanged in Certain Welded 
ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30071 (May 10, 
2000). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether SeAH made home market sales during the POR at prices 
below their COPs.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of SeAH's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and interest 
expenses. See the ``Test of Home Market Sales Prices'' section below 
for treatment of home market selling expenses.
    We relied on the COP information provided by SeAH in its 
questionnaire response, except for the following instances where the 
information was not appropriately quantified or valued:
    i. During the POR, SeAH purchased hot-rolled stainless steel coil 
from a Korean affiliate, Pohang Iron and Steel Company (POSCO). 
Stainless steel coil is a major input in the production of stainless 
steel pipe. In accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act, we 
evaluated transactions between SeAH and its affiliate using the 
transfer price, COP, and market price of stainless steel coils. We 
adjusted SeAH's reported costs to reflect the highest of these three 
values for SeAH's purchases of stainless steel coil from POSCO.
    ii. We adjusted the numerator of SeAH's G&A expense ratio to 
include raw material and work-in-process inventory (WIP) valuation 
losses. We also adjusted the denominator of the G&A expense ratio to 
exclude these inventory valuation losses.
    iii. We excluded the long-term interest income generated from 
retirement and severance deposits from the calculation of the interest 
expense ratio. We also adjusted the denominator of the financial 
expense ratio to exclude raw material and WIP inventory valuation 
losses.
    iv. We replaced the negative labor cost reported for one product 
(or ``control number'') with the labor cost of the most similar control 
number.
    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum 
from Laurens van Houten, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, 
Office of Accounting, entitled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed 
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--SeAH Steel 
Corporation,'' dated December 31, 2009.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    To determine whether SeAH's home market sales had been made at 
prices below the COP, we computed weighted-average COPs during the POR, 
and compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales 
prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home 
market prices, net of billing adjustments, any applicable movement 
charges, selling expenses, and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 
where less than 20 percent of SeAH'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.'' Where 20 percent or more of SeAH's 
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we determined 
that sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within 
an extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such 
cases, 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)(1)(B) and (b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded 
these below-cost sales for SeAH and used the remaining sales as the 
basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the 
Act.

E. Calculation of Normal Value

    We calculated NV based on the starting prices to home market 
customers. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting 
price for billing adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). In 
addition, where appropriate, we made deductions for inland freight 
expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act, we made adjustments 
for credit expenses. We made a CEP offset pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We calculated the CEP 
offset as the lesser of the indirect selling expenses on the home-
market sales or the indirect selling expenses deducted from the 
starting price in calculating CEP. We deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    Finally, we made an adjustment to NV to account for differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411(a).

Currency Conversion

    In accordance with section 773A of the Act, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. See also 19 CFR 351.415.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for 
SeAH during the period December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel Corporation.......................................       5.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, 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. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 
importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales 
and the total entered value of the examined sales. These rates

[[Page 977]]

will be assessed uniformly on all entries of the respective importers 
made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the 
final results of review. The Department intends to issue appropriate 
assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 
publication of the final results of this review.
    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 SeAH for which SeAH did not know 
that the merchandise it 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

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for SeAH will be 
that established in the final results of this review, except if the 
rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the 
meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate 
will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
participating in this review, 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 original 
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 7.00 
percent, the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. 
See Amended Final Determination and Order, 60 FR 10061, 10065 (Feb. 23, 
1995). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until further notice.

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement 
of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised 
in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of its 
analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 
days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also 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.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: December 31, 2009.
Susan Kuhbach,
Senior Director, Office 1, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010-29 Filed 1-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P