[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67407-67411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-830]


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (wire 
rod) from Mexico covering the period of review (POR) October 1, 2009, 
through September 30, 2010. This review covers one producer/exporter of 
subject merchandise: ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We determined that AMLT is the successor-in-interest to 
Sicartsa in an antidumping changed circumstances review. The final 
Federal Register notice was published on July 29, 2011. See Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, (76 FR 45509 (July 29, 
2011)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that, during the POR, AMLT and its 
affiliate, ArcelorMittal International America LLC (AMIA) made sales of 
subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. The Department will issue the final results within 120 days 
after publication of the preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: November 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8362.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On October 29, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on wire 
rod from Mexico. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Wire 
Rod Orders). On October 1, 2010, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 
60733 (October 1, 2010). On October 29, 2010, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b), the Department received a timely request from Nucor 
Corporation (Nucor) and Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (Cascade 
Steel), domestic producers of carbon wire rod, to conduct an 
administrative review of the sales of Aceros San Luis SA. de C.V. 
(Aceros), Arcelor Mittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. (AMLT), DeAcero de 
C.V. (DeAcero), Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. 
(Sicartsa), and Talleres y Aceros S.A. de C.V. (Talleres). On October 
29, 2010, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department also 
received a timely request from ArcelorMittal USA, Inc. (ArcelorMittal), 
Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (Gerdau), and Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel 
(Evraz), domestic producers of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod, 
to conduct an administrative review of the sales of AMLT, Sicartsa,\2\ 
Ternium Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Ternium), DeAcero, Aceros, Talleres, and 
Altos Hornos de Mexico S..A. de C.V. (Altos Hornos). On November 1, 
2010, AMLT, a Mexican producer of the subject merchandise requested an 
administrative review of its exports subject to the antidumping order 
referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ArcelorMittal did not join in the request for a review of 
AMLT or Sicartsa. On February 28, 2011, ArcelorMittal withdrew its 
participation in this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 29, 2010, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review with respect to the following companies for the 
period October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010: Aceros, Altos

[[Page 67408]]

Hornos, AMLT, DeAcero, Sicartsa, Talleres, and Ternium. See Initiation 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 
73036 (November 29, 2010) (Initiation Notice). Subsequently, on March 
24, 2011, the Department rescinded the review with respect to DeAcero, 
Aceros, Talleres, Ternium, and Altos Hornos. See Carbon and Certain 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Notice of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 16607 (March 24, 2011).
    The Department selected AMLT/Sicartsa as mandatory respondents in 
this review.\3\ On January 10, 2011, the Department sent the initial 
questionnaire covering sections A through D to AMLT. On February 17, 
2011, AMLT submitted its section A questionnaire response to the 
Department's questionnaire. On February 24, 2011, AMLT submitted its 
sections B through C response to the Department's questionnaire. On 
March 3, 2011, AMLT submitted its section D response to the 
Department's questionnaire. On March 21, 2011, the Department sent to 
AMLT a supplemental questionnaire for section D and received the 
response on April 25, 2011. On March 28, 2011, the Department sent to 
AMLT a supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C and received 
the response on May 5, 2011. On April 28, 2011, the Department sent to 
AMLT a second supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C and 
received the response on May 12, 2011. On April 28, 2011, the 
Department sent to AMLT a third supplemental questionnaire for sections 
A through C. We received the response on May 23, 2011. On July 5, 2011, 
the Department issued a second supplemental section D questionnaire, 
and received the response on July 22, 2011. On August 4, 2011, the 
Department issued a third supplemental section D questionnaire, and 
received the response on September 1, 2011. On May 3, 2011, Gerdau 
Ameristeel US Inc. and Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, a division of Evraz, 
Inc. NA (petitioners) submitted comments on the April 28, 2011, 
supplemental questionnaire response from AMLT. On September 16, 2011, 
petitioners submitted comments for the Department's consideration in 
its preliminary analysis of the questionnaire responses of AMLT. On 
June 10, 2011, the Department published a notice extending the time 
period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review 
from July 3, 2011, to October 31, 2011. See Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for the 
Preliminary Results of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 
FR 34044 (June 10, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, to 
Melissa Skinner, Director, Operations, Office 3, entitled 
``Respondent Selection,'' dated January 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), the Department conducted verification of the questionnaire 
responses submitted by AMLT in March, April, and May 2011. See 
Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales Response of 
ArcelorMittal las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (AMLT) in the Antidumping Review 
of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico,'' (July 12, 
2011). The verification report is available on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the Department's main building.
    On June 8, 2011, the Department received a revised home market and 
U.S. market sales database based on minor corrections submitted at the 
sales verification of AMLT in Mexico City, Mexico. On June 30, 2011, 
the Department also received a revised U.S. market database based on 
minor corrections submitted at the sales verification of AMLT's 
affiliate in Chicago.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid 
cross-sectional diameter.
    Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted 
physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) Stainless steel; (b) tool 
steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete 
reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel 
products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the 
following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more 
of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of 
phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 
percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire 
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire 
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no 
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 
having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no 
deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon 
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 
04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a 
length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter 
of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing 
by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, 
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
    This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 
microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the 
grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered 
to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis--that 
is, the direction of rolling--of the rod) over thickness (measured on 
the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) 
is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for 
purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the 
measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section

[[Page 67409]]

measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This 
measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 
1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead 
quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber 
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the 
scope. However, should the petitioners or other interested parties 
provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a 
pattern of importation of such products for other than those 
applications, end-use certification for the importation of such 
products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers 
of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the 
imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope.
    The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3000, 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 
7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3091, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.3093, 
7213.91.4500, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6000, 7213.91.6010, 
7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 
7227.20.0000, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 
7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6050, 
7227.90.6051 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, 7227.90.6080, 
and 7227.90.6085 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

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

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of wire rod from Mexico were made in the 
United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export 
Price and Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we 
calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to 
individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

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

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

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

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which 
AMLT participated, the Department found that the respondent made sales 
in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. See 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 71 FR 27989 (May 
15, 2006). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that AMLT made sales of wire rod in Mexico at prices below 
the cost of production (COP) in this administrative review. As a 
result, we initiated a COP inquiry for AMLT.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the

[[Page 67410]]

foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and 
administrative expenses, packing expenses, and interest expense. We 
relied on the cost data submitted by AMLT in their section D responses 
except as noted below.
    1. We recalculated AMLT's G&A and financial expense, by multiplying 
the G&A and financial expense ratio by the sum of the costs reported in 
the following fields: TOTCOM, VARADU, FIXADU and FIXADU2.\4\ See 
Memorandum from Laurens van Houten, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. 
Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled ``Cost of Production 
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results--ArcelorMittal las Truchas, S.A. de C.V'' (Cost Calculation 
Memorandum), dated October 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ TOTCOM = Total Cost of Manufacture.
    VARADU = Adjustment Made to Variable Costs.
    FIXADU = First Adjustment Made to Fixed Costs.
    FIXADU2 = Second Adjustment Made to Fixed Costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. We allocated the entire amount of the AMLT's ``nonoperational 
plant or low production expenses'' over AMLT's cost of goods sold, and 
applied the adjustment factor to the total cost of manufacture (TOTCOM) 
of all control numbers (CONNUMs) produced.
    3. AMLT inadvertently applied a 2009 adjustment factor to 2010 
costs and also the 2010 adjustment factor to 2009 costs. We corrected 
this error by applying the 2009 factor to 2009 costs and the 2010 
factor to the 2010 costs.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    We examined the cost data and determined that our quarterly cost 
methodology is not warranted and, therefore, we have applied our 
standard methodology of using annual costs based on the reported data, 
adjusted as described in the ``Cost of Production'' section above. 
Because we are applying our standard annual-average cost test in these 
preliminary results, we have also applied our standard cost-recovery 
test with no adjustments.
    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales 
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing 
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' 
See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring 
during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to 
POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded 
below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the 
basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-works, free on board (FOB) or 
delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made deductions 
from the starting price, when appropriate, for inland freight, 
warehousing, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. In accordance 
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing 
costs and deducted home market packing, respectively. In addition, we 
made circumstances of sale (COS) adjustments for direct expenses 
including imputed credit expenses, commissions, and billing adjustments 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for 
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using weighted-
average costs.
    Further, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we applied partial 
adverse facts available (AFA) with regard to AMLT's inland freight 
expense in the home market as a replacement for the non-verifiable data 
at verification in the INLFTCH field of the home market database. 
Specifically, we applied the lowest expense reported in the INLFTCH 
field in the home market database for all CONNUMs containing non-
verified INLFTCH expenses. See Memorandum to the File ``Calculation 
Memorandum for ArcelorMittal Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (AMLT)'' 
(Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum), dated October 31, 2011.

D. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. 
In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 
on home market), we consider the starting prices before any 
adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote 
from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision).
    In the home market, AMLT reported sales made through one LOT 
corresponding to one channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, AMLT 
reported two LOTs corresponding to two channels of distribution. AMLT 
made direct sales to unaffiliated end users and through its U.S. 
affiliate. We have determined that the sales made by AMLT directly to 
U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by AMLT's

[[Page 67411]]

affiliated U.S. reseller constitute CEP sales. Furthermore, we have 
found that U.S. sales and home market sales were made at different LOT. 
AMLT requested that a CEP offset should be made in calculating the 
normal value because according to AMLT, the activities in the home 
market are at a more advanced level of trade. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily find it necessary to make a CEP offset. For further 
explanation of our LOT analysis, see Preliminary Sales Calculation 
Memorandum.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 
1, 2009, through September 30, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Producer/Manufacturer               Weighted-Average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMLT......................................  5.45%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs limited 
to issues raised in the case briefs may be filed no later than 35 days 
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) A 
statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rate

    The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the 
subject merchandise for each respondent. Upon issuance of the final 
results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific 
assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis 
(i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on 
appropriate entries.
    To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period 
were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or 
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing 
this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or 
customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 
greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable 
entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of 
the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an 
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de 
minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-
unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. 
sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the 
total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in 
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for AMLT, we divided the total 
dumping margin by the total net value for AMLT's sales during the POR.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
wire rod from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for AMLT will be the 
rate established in the final results of this review, except if the 
rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash 
deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results 
in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 
and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 20.11 percent, the all-others rate established in 
the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the 
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of 
antidumping duties reimbursed.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 21, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-28317 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P