[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49467-49475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20075]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-831]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results and Rescission in Part 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 stainless steel 
sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) from Taiwan with respect to 20 
companies.\1\ The Department selected Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., 
Ltd. (Chia Far), as the mandatory respondent in this review. The 
respondents which were not selected for individual examination are 
listed in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice. 
The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department is rescinding the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales were not made below normal 
value (NV). We are also rescinding this review with respect to Emerdex 
Group, Emerdex Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc., and Emerdex 
Stainless Steel, Inc. (collectively, the ``Emerdex Companies'').
    If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results.

DATES: Effective Date: August 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry Almond, 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) 482-0049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on SSSSC from Taiwan. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
United Kingdom, Taiwan, and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999) 
(SSSSC Order). On July 1, 2009, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of 
this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
74 FR 31406 (July 1, 2009).
    On July 28, 2009, Chia Far submitted a timely request for the 
Department to conduct an administrative review of its shipments of 
SSSSC made during the POR, in accordance with section 751(a) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On 
July 31, 2009, the petitioners \2\ submitted a timely request for the 
Department to conduct an administrative review of the sales of SSSSC 
made during the POR by the following 23 companies: Chain Chon 
Industrial Co., Ltd.; Chia Far; Chien Shing Stainess Co.; China Steel 
Corporation; Dah Shi Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.; Emerdex Group; Emerdex 
Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc.; Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc.; 
Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.; KNS Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Lih 
Chan Steel Co., Ltd.; Maytun International Corp.; PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.; 
Shih Yuan Stainess Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Ta Chen Stainless Pipe 
Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen); Tang

[[Page 49468]]

Eng Iron Works; Tibest International Inc.; Tung Mung Development Co., 
Ltd. (Tung Mung)/Ta Chen; \3\ Waterson Corp.; Yieh Loong Enterprise 
Co., Ltd. (aka Chung Hung Steel Co., Ltd.); Yieh Mau Corp.;Yieh Trading 
Corp.; and Yieh United Steel Corporation, also pursuant to section 
751(a) of the Act, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel 
Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 
3303, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville 
Armco Independent Organization.
    \3\ Regarding Tung Mung/Ta Chen we initiated this review with 
respect to merchandise produced by Tung Mung and exported by Ta 
Chen. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 42873 n.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In August 2009, the Department published a notice of initiation of 
administrative review covering each of these 23 companies. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 42873, 42875 (Aug. 
25, 2009) (Initiation Notice). In our initiation notice we indicated 
that, in the event we limited the number of respondents for individual 
examination, we would select mandatory respondents for review based 
upon CBP entry data. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 42874. In this 
month we released relevant CBP data to interested parties. Also in this 
month we received a statement from China Steel Corporation indicating 
that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR.
    In September 2009, we received comments on the issue of respondent 
selection from the petitioners and Chia Far.
    In October 2009, after considering the resources available to the 
Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine all 
exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review was 
requested. See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 
Operations, from Henry Almond, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 
entitled: ``2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of SSSSC 
from Taiwan: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated 
October 6, 2009 (Respondent Selection Memo). As a result, we selected 
the largest exporter of subject merchandise during the POR, Chia Far, 
for individual examination in this segment of the proceeding. 
Accordingly, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Chia Far 
on October 6, 2009.
    In December 2009, we received Chia Far's responses to sections A 
through D of the questionnaire.
    In February 2010, the Department exercised its discretion to toll 
deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government 
from February 5, through February 12, 2010. For further discussion, see 
Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 
Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a 
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated 
February 12, 2010.
    In March 2010, we issued supplemental questionnaires covering 
sections A (i.e., the section related to general information), B and C 
(i.e., the sections covering comparison market and U.S. sales, 
respectively), and D (i.e., the section covering cost of production 
(COP)) of the questionnaire. Chia Far responded to these supplemental 
questionnaires in March and April 2010.
    In April 2010, we published a notice extending the time limit for 
completion of the preliminary results. See Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
17378 (Apr. 6, 2010).
    In May 2010, the Department verified the sales data submitted by 
Chia Far. We have incorporated our sales verification findings in these 
preliminary results. Also in this month we issued an additional 
questionnaire regarding section D of the questionnaire.
    In July 2010, the Department verified the cost data submitted by 
Chia Far.

Period of Review

    The POR is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet 
and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by 
weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of 
chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip 
is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width 
and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise 
heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and 
strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, 
aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific 
dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.
    The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 
7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 
7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 
7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 
7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 
7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 
7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under 
the order is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) Sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness 
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent 
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain specialty 
stainless steel products described below. Flapper valve steel is 
defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, 
between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent 
molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel 
also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon 
of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. 
The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with 
inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for 
oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile 
strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength

[[Page 49469]]

of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of 
between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to 
produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as Arnokrome III.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless 
steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials 
specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 
percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its 
resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 
1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms 
per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most 
commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers 
and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The 
product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as 
Gilphy 36.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Gilphy 36 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent 
chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and 
molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with 
phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. 
This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, 
and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate 
tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation 
percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in 
thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This 
product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes 
and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as 
Durphynox 17.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Durphynox 17 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\7\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as GIN4 Mo. The second excluded stainless 
steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, 
carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 
0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. 
This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles 
per 100 square microns. An example of this product is GIN5 steel. The 
third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, 
with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 
percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This 
product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed 
after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, GIN6.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This list of uses is illustrated and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \8\ GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary grades of Hitachi 
Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    The Department finds that it is appropriate to rescind the instant 
review with respect to the Emerdex Companies named by the petitioners 
in their review request because the Department found in the 2003-2004 
administrative review of this order that the Emerdex companies are U.S. 
entities. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 45521, 45524-45525 (Aug. 9, 2006) 
unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 75504 (Dec. 15, 2006). We note that the petitioners in 
the instant review have not provided any additional information 
demonstrating that the Emerdex companies for which they have requested 
a review are located in Taiwan. Consequently, we are rescinding this 
review with regard to the Emerdex companies. This treatment is 
consistent with the Department's treatment of these companies in the 
most recent administrative review of the antidumping order on SSSSC 
from Taiwan involving the Emerdex Companies. See Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Rescission in 
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 43236, 43239 
(Aug. 3, 2007) unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 6932, (Feb. 6, 2008).

[[Page 49470]]

Preliminary No Shipment Determination

    As noted in the ``Background'' section above, China Steel 
Corporation certified to the Department that it had no shipments/
entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. 
The Department subsequently confirmed with CBP the no-shipment claim 
made by China Steel Corporation. Because the evidence on the record 
indicates that China Steel Corporation did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, we preliminarily 
determine that China Steel Corporation had no reviewable transactions 
during the POR.
    Since the implementation of the 1997 regulations, our practice 
concerning no-shipment respondents has been to rescind the 
administrative review if the respondent certifies that it had no 
shipments and we have confirmed through our examination of CBP data 
that there were no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 
1997). As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to 
liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit rate 
in effect on the date of entry.
    In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we 
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review 
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to 
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).
    Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate 
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address, 
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any 
existing entries of merchandise produced by China Steel Corporation and 
exported by other parties at the all-others rate, should we continue to 
find that China Steel Corporation had no shipments of subject 
merchandise in the POR in our final results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal 
From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010). In addition, the 
Department finds that it is more consistent with the May 2003 
clarification not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances 
but, rather, to complete the review with respect to China Steel 
Corporation and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the 
final results of the review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of 
this notice below.

Affiliation

    In the 2007-2008 administrative review, the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding, we found Chia Far and Lucky Medsup Inc. 
(Lucky Medsup), one of Chia Far's U.S. reseller customers, to be 
affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act, which states that, for 
purposes of affiliation, ``a person shall be considered to control 
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position 
to exercise restraint or direction over that person.'' The Department's 
regulations further provide that ``{t{time} he Secretary will not find 
that control exists on the basis of these factors unless the 
relationship has the potential to impact decisions concerning the 
production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise or foreign like 
product.'' See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(3). This affiliation determination was 
based on the fact that ``Chia Far is in a position to exercise 
restraint or direction over Lucky Medsup and has the potential to have 
an impact on Lucky Medsup's decisions regarding sales and pricing.'' 
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 39055, 39058 (Aug. 5, 2009) (2007-2008 Preliminary 
Results), unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 5947, 5949 (Feb. 5, 2010) (2007-2008 Final 
Results).
    Moreover, this affiliation determination in the 2007-2008 
administrative review is consistent with the Department's finding in 
prior administrative reviews. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Preliminary 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
45393, 45395-45396 (Aug. 5, 2008) unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Rescission in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 74704, 74706 (Dec. 9, 
2008) (2006-2007 Final Results); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From 
Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682 (Feb. 13, 2002), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 23 (upheld by the Court of 
International Trade (CIT) in Chia Far Indus. Factory Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, et al., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1356-57 (CIT 2004)). See 
also the August 9, 2010, Memorandum to the File from Henry Almond, 
Analyst, entitled, ``Placing Information Regarding the Principal-Agent 
Relationship between Lucky Medsup Inc. and Chia Far Industrial Factory 
Co., Ltd. on the Record of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Taiwan.''
    In the present review, Lucky Medsup continues to act as a ``go-
through'' without maintaining inventory, and Chia Far supplied all of 
the subject merchandise sold by Lucky Medsup during the POR. Further, 
Chia Far has submitted no evidence on the record to demonstrate that 
Chia Far is less involved in the transactions between Lucky Medsup and 
its customers as found in prior reviews. Therefore, we continue to find 
for purposes of these preliminary results that Chia Far is affiliated 
with Lucky Medsup because Chia Far is in a position to exercise 
restraint or direction over Lucky Medsup and has the potential to have 
an impact on Lucky Medsup's decisions regarding sales and pricing.

Identifying Home Market Sales

    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act defines NV as the price at which 
the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, 
offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home 
market), in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course 
of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade 
(LOT) as the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP). In 
implementing this provision, the CIT has found that sales should be 
reported as home market sales if the producer ``knew or should have 
known that the merchandise {it sold{time}  was for home consumption 
based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the 
sales.'' See Tung Mung Dev. Co v. United States, 25 CIT 752, 783 (2001) 
(quoting INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 251 
(CIT 1997)). Where a respondent has no knowledge as to the destination 
of subject merchandise, except that it is for export, the Department 
will classify such sales as export sales and exclude them from the home 
market sales database. See 2007-2008 Preliminary Results, 74 FR at 
39058, unchanged in 2007-2008 Final Results, and Final Determinations 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

[[Page 49471]]

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea, 58 FR 37176, 
37182-37183 (July 9, 1993).
    In its December 4, 2009, questionnaire response, Chia Far stated 
that it shipped some of the SSSSC it sold to home market customers 
during the POR to a container yard or it placed the SSSSC in an ocean 
shipping container at the home market customer's request. The 
Department has preliminarily determined that, based on the fact that 
these sales were sent to a container yard or placed in a container by 
Chia Far at the request of the home market customer, Chia Far should 
have known that the SSSSC in question was not for consumption in the 
home market. Therefore, consistent with this determination, the 
Department has preliminarily excluded these sales from Chia Far's home 
market sales database. This treatment is consistent with our practice 
in prior administrative reviews of this order. See, e.g., 2007-2008 
Preliminary Results, 74 FR at 39059, unchanged in 2007-2008 Final 
Results.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    In order to determine whether Chia Far sold SSSSC to the United 
States at prices less than NV, we compared the EP and CEP of individual 
U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of the foreign 
like product made in the ordinary course of trade. See sections 
777A(d)(2) and 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act 
defines foreign like product as merchandise that is identical or 
similar to subject merchandise and produced by the same person and in 
the same country as the subject merchandise. Thus, we considered all 
products covered by the scope of the order that were produced by the 
same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise, and 
sold by Chia Far in the comparison market during the POR, to be foreign 
like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to SSSSC sold in the United States.
    During the POR, Chia Far sold subject merchandise and foreign like 
product that it made from hot- and cold-rolled stainless steel coils 
(products covered by the scope of the order) purchased from 
unaffiliated parties. Chia Far further processed the hot- and cold-
rolled stainless steel coils by performing one or more of the following 
procedures: cold-rolling, bright annealing, surface finishing/shaping, 
and slitting. We did not consider Chia Far to be the producer of the 
merchandise under review if it performed only insignificant processing 
on the coils (e.g., annealing, slitting, surface finishing). See 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 74495 (Dec. 14, 2004), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (listing 
painting, slitting, finishing, pickling, oiling, and annealing as minor 
processing for flat-rolled products). Furthermore, we did not consider 
Chia Far to be the producer of the cold-rolled products that it sold if 
it was not the first party to cold-roll the coils. The cold-rolling 
process changes the surface quality and mechanical properties of the 
product and produces useful combinations of hardness, strength, 
stiffness, and ductility. Stainless steel cold-rolled coils are 
distinguished from hot-rolled coils by their reduced thickness, tighter 
tolerances, better surface quality, and increased hardness which are 
achieved through cold-rolling. Chia Far's subsequent cold-rolling of 
the cold-rolled coils that it purchased may have modified these 
characteristics to suit the needs of particular customers; however, it 
did not impart these defining characteristics to the finished coils. 
Thus, we considered the original party that cold-rolled the product to 
be its producer.

Product Comparisons

    As described in the ``Normal Value'' section below, we are using a 
quarterly costing approach. Therefore, we have not made price-to-price 
comparisons outside of a quarter to lessen the distortive effect of 
comparing non-contemporaneous sales prices during a period of 
significantly changing costs. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise made in the comparison market in the ordinary course of 
trade within the same quarter, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the 
most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade 
within the same quarter. In making product comparisons, we selected 
identical and most similar foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by Chia Far in the following order of 
importance: grade, hot- or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic 
coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    The Department based the price of Chia Far's U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise on EP or CEP, as appropriate. Specifically, when Chia Far 
sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted based 
on the facts of the record, we based the price of the sale on EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. When Chia Far sold subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States through its 
U.S. affiliate, Lucky Medsup, we based the price of the sale on CEP, in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act.
    We revised Chia Far's reported U.S. sales data to take in account 
our findings at verification. For further discussion, see the August 9, 
2010, memorandum to the file from Henry Almond entitled, ``Sales 
Calculation Adjustments for Chia Far for the Preliminary Results'' 
(Sales Calculation Memo).
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, international freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, 
container handling charges, foreign harbor construction expenses, and 
certificate-of-origin fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act.
    We based CEP on packed prices sold to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland 
freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, container 
handling charges, foreign harbor construction expenses, international 
freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. duty expenses, U.S. 
brokerage and handling expenses, and other U.S. transportation 
expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted from CEP those selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct 
selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses and bank fees) and 
indirect selling expenses.
    In addition, we deducted from the CEP starting price an amount for 
CEP profit (i.e., profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 
772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act), in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) 
and 772(f) of the Act. We computed profit by deducting from the total 
revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets all 
expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to the 
expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the 
ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and 
home markets.

[[Page 49472]]

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order 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 the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of 
Chia Far's home market sales of the foreign like product is more than 
five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product in the 
respondent's home market.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or 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 comparison 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 EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\9\ 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, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 practicable, 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 more advanced stage of 
distribution than the CEP LOT 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 practicable), the Department 
shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 
Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-33.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from Chia 
Far regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home 
market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by Chia Far for each channel of distribution. Chia 
Far reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to distributors, 
as well as CEP sales to its affiliate, Lucky Medsup. Chia Far reported 
identical selling activities in selling to its unaffiliated U.S. 
customers as it did in selling to Lucky Medsup. We examined the selling 
activities performed for both channels and found that Chia Far 
performed the following types of selling activities equally in selling 
to its unaffiliated U.S. customers and to Lucky Medsup: (1) Price 
negotiation and communication with the customer (i.e., either its 
unaffiliated customers for EP sales, or Lucky Medsup for its CEP 
sales); (2) arranging for freight and the provision of customs 
clearance/brokerage services (where necessary); and (3) provision of 
general technical advice (where necessary) and quality assurance-
related activities. These selling activities can be generally grouped 
into four selling function categories for analysis: (1) Sales and 
marketing; (2) freight and delivery; and (3) inventory maintenance and 
warehousing; and (4) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, we 
find that Chia Far performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery 
services, and technical support services for U.S. sales. Because the 
level of Chia Far's selling activities did not vary by distribution 
channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. 
market.
    With respect to the home market, Chia Far reported that it made 
sales to distributors and end users. We examined the selling activities 
performed for home market sales and found that Chia Far performed the 
following types of selling activities equally for sales to distributors 
and end users: (1) Price negotiation and communication with the 
customer; (2) arranging for freight (where necessary); (3) provision of 
general technical advice (where necessary) and quality assurance-
related activities, including providing warranty services and rebates; 
and (4) post-sale warehousing/processing on request. Accordingly, based 
on the selling functions analysis described above, we find that Chia 
Far performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, 
warranty and technical support services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for home market sales. Consequently, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the home market for Chia Far.
    Finally, 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 
do not differ significantly. Specifically, although Chia Far performed 
occasional warehousing and post-sale processing functions, as well as 
offering warranty services in the home market that it did not perform 
on sales to the United States, we do not find these differences to be 
material selling function distinctions sufficient to warrant a separate 
LOT for purposes of these preliminary results. Thus, we determine that 
the NV LOT is the same as the U.S. LOT.
    Regarding the CEP-offset provision, as described above, it is 
appropriate only if the NV LOT is at more advanced stage of 
distribution than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining 
whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability. Because we find that no difference exists between the NV 
and CEP LOTs, we do not find that a CEP offset is warranted.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the 2006-2007 administrative review, the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding as of the date of initiation of this review, 
the Department determined that Chia Far sold the foreign like product 
at prices below the cost of producing the product and excluded such 
sales from the calculation of NV. See 2006-2007 Final Results, 73 FR at 
74706. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether Chia Far made home market sales during the POR at 
prices below their COPs. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
1. Cost-Averaging Methodology
    The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual 
weighted-average

[[Page 49473]]

cost for the POR. See, e.g., Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 (Dec. 13, 2000), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, and 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (Jan. 
24, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 
(explaining the Department's practice of computing a single weighted-
average cost for the entire period).
    We recognize that distortions may result if we use our normal 
annual-average cost method during a period of significant cost changes. 
In determining whether to deviate from our normal methodology of 
calculating an annual weighted-average cost, we evaluate the case-
specific record evidence using two primary factors: (1) The change in 
the cost of manufacture (COM) recognized by the respondent during the 
POR must be significant; (2) sales during the shorter averaging periods 
could be reasonably linked with the COP or CV during the same shorter 
averaging periods. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
75 FR 6627 (Feb. 10, 2010) (SSSSC from Mexico), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
73 FR 75398 (Dec. 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4 (SSPC from Belgium).
    We requested that Chia Far provide pertinent information for the 
products with the five highest volumes sold in the home market and the 
United States over the twelve months of the POR. Chia Far provided this 
information in its June 2, 2010, response.
2. Significance of Cost Changes
    In prior cases, we established 25 percent as the threshold (between 
the high- and low-quarter COM) for determining that the changes in COM 
are significant enough to warrant a departure from our standard annual-
cost approach. See SSPC from Belgium at Comment 4. In the instant case, 
record evidence shows that Chia Far experienced significant changes 
(i.e., changes that exceeded 25 percent) between the high and low 
quarterly COM during the POR and that the change in COM is primarily 
attributable to the price volatility of hot-rolled steel, the major 
input for SSSSC. For further discussion, see the memorandum from James 
Balog, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 
entitled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculations for 
the Preliminary Results--Chia Far,'' dated August 9, 2010 (Cost Memo). 
As a result, we have preliminarily determined that the changes in COM 
for Chia Far are significant enough to warrant a departure from our 
annual costing approach.
3. Linkage Between Cost and Sales Information
    The Department's definition of ``linkage'' does not require direct 
traceability between specific sales and their specific production costs 
but, rather, relies on whether there are elements that would indicate a 
reasonable correlation between the underlying costs and the final sales 
prices levied by the company. See SSPC from Belgium at Comment 4. These 
correlative elements may be measured and defined in a number of ways 
depending on the associated industry and the overall production and 
sales processes. To determine whether a reasonable correlation existed 
between the sales prices and their underlying costs during the POR, we 
compared weighted-average quarterly prices to the corresponding 
quarterly COM for the five highest volume products sold in each of the 
home and U.S. markets. After reviewing this information and determining 
that there is a consistent trend of sales and costs throughout the POR, 
we preliminarily determine that there is linkage between Chia Far's 
changing costs and sales prices during the POR. See the Cost Memo.
    Because we have found significant cost changes in COM as well as 
reasonable linkage between costs and sales prices, we have 
preliminarily determined that a quarterly costing approach leads to 
more appropriate comparisons in our antidumping duty calculation for 
Chia Far.
4. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each foreign 
like product sold by Chia Far during the POR, we calculated a weighted-
average quarterly COP based on the sum of Chia Far's materials and 
fabrication costs, G&A expenses, and financial expenses to determine if 
Chia Far's home market sales were made at prices below the COP.
    For the cost of SSSSC sold by Chia Far in its home market during 
the POR, but not produced by Chia Far during the POR, we used, as facts 
available, Chia Far's quarterly costs to produce merchandise with 
characteristics similar to the merchandise not produced by Chia Far.
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Chia Far in its 
most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, except 
in the following instances:
    a. Chia Far sold certain models of SSSSC in its home market during 
the POR, which it did not produce during the period. As the costs for 
these models, we used, as facts available, Chia Far's quarterly costs 
reported for the most similar models produced during the POR. For 
further discussion, see the Cost Memo and the Sales Calculation Memo.
    b. We disallowed Chia Far's reported negative financial expenses. 
For further discussion, see the Cost Memo.
5. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices
    In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the 
COP on a product-specific basis, we compared Chia Far's weighted-
average quarterly COP to the prices of its home market sales of foreign 
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In 
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less 
than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We compared the COP to home market sales prices, less 
any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling 
expenses.
6. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Chia Far's sales of a given product were made at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Chia Far's sales of a given 
product were made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time (i.e., one year) pursuant to sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Based on our comparison of indexed POR 
average costs to reported prices, we also determined, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that these sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. As a result,

[[Page 49474]]

we disregarded the below-cost sales of that product.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We have preliminarily excluded from our calculation of normal value 
all of Chia Far's sales to certain of its home market customers on the 
basis that these sales were not made in the ordinary course of trade, 
in accordance with sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 771(15) of the Act. 
Specifically, these customers exclusively purchased small, left over 
coils resulting from the process of slitting larger coils into specific 
lengths and widths for re-sale as scrap, at prices which were similar 
to Chia Far's reported per-unit scrap values. When faced with similar 
fact patterns, the Department has treated such sales as outside the 
ordinary course of trade. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products From Japan, 64 FR 24329, 24341 (May 6, 1999) (where the 
Department classified overrun sales as outside the ordinary course of 
trade where they were made in small quantities overall, at lower prices 
than normal merchandise, and to a small number of customers). For 
further discussion, see the June 16, 2010, memorandum from Henry Almond 
to the File, entitled ``Verification of the Sales Response of Chia 
Far'' at pages 2 and 9-10 and the Sales Calculation Memo.
    We based NV for Chia Far on prices to unaffiliated customers in the 
home market. We revised Chia Far's reported home market sales data to 
take into account our findings at verification. For further discussion, 
see the Sales Calculation Memo. We made deductions from the starting 
price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments, discounts, and 
rebates. We also made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight expenses under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including imputed 
credit expenses, warranties, and other direct selling expenses).
    For comparisons to CEP sales, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we deducted from NV 
direct selling expenses (i.e., including imputed credit expenses, 
warranties, and other direct selling expenses), and indirect selling 
expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling 
expenses).
    For all price-to-price comparisons we also 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 adjustments for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margin exists for Chia Far for the period July 1, 2008, through 
June 30, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd........................       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the Department exercises its discretion to limit the number 
of respondents for individual examination pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act, it is the Department's normal practice to 
calculate a review-specific rate for the companies for which the 
Department received review requests, but did not individually examine, 
based upon the rates calculated for the individually examined 
companies, excluding any zero or de minimis margins or any margins 
based on total facts available. Where, as here, the only calculated 
margins are zero or de mimimis, it is the Department's practice to base 
the review-specific rate on calculated rates from prior segments of the 
proceeding. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273 (Sept. 9, 2008), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
    Accordingly, we have preliminarily based the review-specific rate 
on the 4.30 percent in the 2007-2008 administrative review, which is 
the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. See 2007-2008 
Final Results 75 FR at 5949. This rate is applicable to the following 
companies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd...............................       4.30
Chien Shing Stainess Co......................................       4.30
China Steel Corporation......................................        (*)
Dah Shi Metal Industrial Co., Ltd............................       4.30
Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd..........................       4.30
KNS Enterprise Co., Ltd......................................       4.30
Lih Chan Steel Co., Ltd......................................       4.30
Maytun International Corp....................................       4.30
PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd..........................................       4.30
Shih Yuan Stainless Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd................       4.30
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen)...................       4.30
Tang Eng Iron Works..........................................       4.30
Tibest International Inc.....................................       4.30
Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd./Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co.,         4.30
 Ltd.**......................................................
Waterson Corp................................................       4.30
Yieh Loong Enterprise Co., Ltd. (aka Chung Hung Steel Co.,          4.30
 Ltd.).......................................................
Yieh Mau Corp................................................       4.30
Yieh Trading Corp............................................       4.30
Yieh United Steel Corporation................................      4.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.
** This rate applies to shipments of SSSSC produced by Tung Mung in
  Taiwan and exported from Taiwan to the United States by Ta Chen.

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)(ii), 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 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case briefs or 
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested 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).
    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. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results

[[Page 49475]]

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.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this 
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review.
    For Chia Far, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales. Consistent with the Department's practice, for the 
companies which were not selected for individual review, we will use 
the cash deposit rate as the assessment rate for these companies. See, 
e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
33409, (July 13, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 3.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de 
minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 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 this review and for 
future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
    As noted above, the Department clarified its ``automatic 
assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice, 
68 FR 23954. 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

    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 each specific 
company listed above 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 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 12.61 percent, the all 
others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See SSSSC Order, 
64 FR at 40557. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 administrative review and notice are 
issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: August 9, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-20075 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P