[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45576-45580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18831]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-865]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products (``hot-rolled steel'') from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the period of review 
(``POR'') November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2011. As discussed 
below, the Department preliminarily determines that the PRC-wide entity 
made sales in the United States at prices below normal value (``NV''). 
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR.

DATES: Effective Date: August 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Hampton, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 29, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the PRC.\1\ 
On December 30, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled 
steel from the PRC covering the period November 1, 2010, through 
October 31, 2011, for 18 companies.\2\ Of the 18 companies on which the 
Department initiated an administrative review, four companies stated 
that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR and 14 companies did not certify or apply for a separate 
rate. The Department addresses the review status of each company below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of the Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China, 66 
FR 59561 (November 29, 2001) (``Order'').
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 
82268 (December 30, 2011) (``Initiation Notice''). Those companies 
are: Angang Group International; Baosteel Group Corporation; Baoshan 
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; Bengang Steel Plates Co., Ltd.; Benxi Iron 
and Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Daye Special Steel Co., Ltd.; Dongbei 
Special Steel Group; Dongguang Bo Yunte Metal Co., Ltd.; Dongyang 
Global Strip Steel Co., Ltd.; Haverer Group Ltd.; Hebei Iron and 
Steel Int'l; Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel; Jinan Iron & Steel 
Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co., 
Ltd.; Shenzhen Zhaoheng Specialty Steel Co.; Union Steel China; 
Xinyu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang Shenghua Steel Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act'') directs the Department to calculate individual weighted-average 
dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the subject 
merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number 
of exporters or producers if it is not practicable to examine all 
exporters or producers involved in the review.
    On January 18, 2012, the Department released CBP data for entries 
of the subject merchandise during the POR under administrative 
protective order (``APO'') to all interested parties having access to 
materials released under an APO, and invited comments regarding the CBP 
data and respondent selection.\3\ The Department did not receive any 
comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. On January 24, 
2012 the Department received a no-sales certification from Baosteel.\4\ 
On February 28, 2012, the Department received a no-shipment 
certification from Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel (``Hunan 
Valin'').\5\ On February 29, 2012 the Department selected Angang 
International Group (``Angang'') as a mandatory respondent because this 
company is the only company for which a review was requested that 
appears in the CBP data as having exported subject merchandise during 
this POR.\6\ On March 1, 2012, the Department sent an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Angang.\7\ The Department did not receive a response 
or extension request from Angang. On March 23, 2012, the Department 
stated on the record that the deadline for Angang to submit a response 
to the Department's questionnaire expired on March 22, 2012 and that 
the Department did not receive a response or extension request from 
Angang.\8\ Additionally, the Department confirmed delivery of this 
questionnaire.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties 
regarding 2010-2011 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
People's Republic of China dated February 29, 2012.
    \4\ See Letter from Baosteel Group Corporation, Shanghai 
Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan 
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., (collectively ``Baosteel'') to the Secretary 
of Commerce, regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from the People's Republic of China: No Sales Certification, dated 
January 24, 2012.
    \5\ See Letter from Hunan Valin to the Secretary of Commerce, 
regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
People's Republic of China: No Shipment Letter, dated February 28, 
2012.
    \6\ See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import 
Administration from Steven Hampton, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration regarding 2010-2011 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of 
China dated February 29, 2012.
    \7\ See Department's letter to Angang regarding Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of 
China, dated March 1, 2012.
    \8\ See Memorandum to Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, 
from Steven Hampton, International Trade Compliance Analyst 
regarding Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 
People's Republic of China: Documentation to Confirm Receipt of 
Questionnaire dated March 23, 2012.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain hot-rolled carbon 
steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or 
greater, neither

[[Page 45577]]

clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, 
varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in 
coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless 
of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 
mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal 
mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a 
closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 
mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and 
without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not 
included within the scope of the order. Specifically included within 
the scope of the order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly 
referred to as interstitial-free (``IF'')) steels, high strength low 
alloy (``HSLA'') steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. 
IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying 
levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred 
to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen 
elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying 
levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and 
molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-
alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.
    Steel products included in the scope of the order, regardless of 
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, 
over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 
percent or less, by weight; and, iii) none of the elements listed below 
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, for example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of the order:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., 
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') specifications 
A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
     Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE'')/American Iron & 
Steel Institute (``AISI'') grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTSUS.
    The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the HTSUS at 
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products covered by the order, including: vacuum degassed fully 
stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor 
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise subject to the order is 
dispositive.

Intent To Rescind, in Part, of Administrative Review

    The Department has preliminarily determined that Baosteel and Hunan 
Valin did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR of 
this administrative review. The Department received no-shipment 
certifications from Baosteel and Hunan Valin on January 24, 2012, and 
February 28, 2012, respectively. To confirm the facts behind these 
assertions, the Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to CBP 
requesting that it provide any information that contradicted the no-
shipment claims. The Department did not receive any response from CBP, 
thus indicating that there were no entries of subject merchandise into 
the United States manufactured and/or shipped by Baosteel or Hunan 
Valin. Because the evidence on the record indicates that neither 
Baosteel nor Hunan Valin exported subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR, we preliminarily determine that these 
respondents had no reviewable transactions during this period. With 
respect to Baosteel, which currently has a separate rate, the 
Department intends to rescind the review. With respect to Hunan Valin 
however, we note that it does not have a separate rate. Therefore, 
Hunan Valin is under review as part of the PRC-wide entity and we will 
make a determination with respect to the PRC-wide entity at these 
preliminary results and the final results.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free 
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic 
of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's 
practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and thus should be 
assessed a single

[[Page 45578]]

antidumping duty rate.\11\ It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\12\ 
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through demonstrating the 
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export 
activities.\13\ The Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic 
of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as 
amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 
22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the 
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located 
in a market economy (``ME''), then a separate rate analysis is not 
necessary to determine whether it is free of government control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 
FR 53079, 53082 (September 8, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006) 
(``Diamond Sawblades'').
    \12\ See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only mandatory respondent in this review, Angang, did not 
submit a separate rate application or certification. Moreover, Angang 
did not submit a full response to the Department's questionnaire, 
including sections related to its separate rate eligibility. Therefore, 
because Angang did not demonstrate its eligibility for separate rate 
status, the Department preliminarily finds that it is not separate from 
the PRC-wide entity. The remaining companies included in the Initiation 
Notice did not submit separate rate applications or certifications. 
There are, therefore, no respondents for which to calculate a separate 
rate in this administrative review.

PRC-Wide Entity

    Upon initiation of the administrative review, the Department 
provided the opportunity for all companies upon which the review was 
initiated to complete either the separate-rates application or 
certification.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 82269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above in the ``Separate Rates'' section of this notice, 
the Department has preliminarily determined that Angang failed to 
demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate and is thus properly 
considered not to be separate from PRC-wide entity. As explained above 
in the ``Separate Rates'' section, all companies within the PRC are 
considered to be subject to government control unless they are able to 
demonstrate an absence of government control with respect to their 
export activities. Accordingly, such companies are assigned a single 
antidumping duty rate distinct from the separate rate(s) determined for 
companies that are found to be free of government control with respect 
to their export activities. In this regard, we note that no party has 
submitted evidence in this proceeding to demonstrate that such 
government influence is no longer present or that our treatment of the 
PRC-wide entity is otherwise incorrect.

Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts 
otherwise available if necessary information is not otherwise available 
on the record of the antidumping proceeding. Specifically, section 
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that where an interested party: (A) 
Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide requested information by the requested date or in the 
form and manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping 
proceeding; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot 
be verified, the Department shall use facts otherwise available in 
reaching its determination.
    Angang did not respond to the antidumping questionnaire issued by 
the Department on March 1, 2012. As such, because the PRC-wide entity, 
which includes Angang, provided the Department with no data from which 
it could calculate a margin, the Department finds that necessary 
information to calculate a margin is not available on the record of 
this proceeding. The Department finds that because Angang, as part of 
the PRC-wide entity, failed to submit any response to the Department's 
questionnaire, the PRC-wide entity withheld requested information, 
failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form 
requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. On this basis, the 
Department finds that it must rely on the facts otherwise available to 
determine a margin for the PRC-wide entity in accordance with section 
776(a) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ``finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority * * * the administering authority * * * may use 
an inference that is adverse to the interests of the party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available.''\16\ Adverse inferences are 
appropriate to ``ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \17\ 
In selecting an adverse inference, the Department may rely on 
information derived from the petition, the final determination in the 
investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on 
the record.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 870 (1994) 
(``SAA'').
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department determines that by failing to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, the PRC-wide entity, which includes Angang, 
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the 
requested information. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), 
(B), and (C) and section 776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate to 
apply a margin to the PRC-wide entity based entirely on the facts 
available, and to apply an adverse inference.\19\ By doing so, we 
ensure that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Angang, will not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had it cooperated 
fully in this review. Therefore, we are assigning the PRC-wide entity, 
which includes Angang, a rate of 90.83 percent, the highest-rate and 
the only rate ever determined for the PRC-wide entity on the record of 
this proceeding.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) 
(decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity), unchanged in 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 
2007).
    \20\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001) (``Hot-Rolled 
Steel Final Determination'')

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

[[Page 45579]]

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, where the Department 
relies on secondary information in selecting adverse facts available 
(``AFA''), the Department corroborate such information to the extent 
practicable. To be considered corroborated, the Department must find 
the information has probative value, meaning that the information must 
be both reliable and relevant.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See SAA at 870; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, 
From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and 
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 
(March 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department considers the AFA rate calculated for the current 
review as both reliable and relevant. On the issue of reliability, the 
Department calculated the rate for a mandatory respondent (i.e., for 
Benxi Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd.) in the less than fair value 
(``LTFV'') investigation.\22\ No information has been presented in the 
current review that calls into question the reliability of this 
information. With respect to the relevance, the Department will 
consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a 
margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that 
the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, 
in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico the Department disregarded the highest 
margin in that case as best information available (the predecessor to 
AFA) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin.\23\ The 
information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and 
production data submitted by a mandatory respondent, Benxi Iron & Steel 
Group Co., Ltd., in the LTFV investigation, together with the most 
appropriate surrogate value information available on the record in the 
LTFV investigation.\24\ Finally, there is no information on the record 
of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate for 
use as AFA. For all these reasons, we determine that this rate 
continues to have relevance with respect to the PRC-wide entity, 
including Angang.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Hot-Rolled Steel Final Determination, 66 FR at 49633.
    \23\ See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 
22, 1996) (``Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico'').
    \24\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001), unchanged 
in Hot-Rolled Steel Final Determination, 66 FR at 49633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the 90.83 percent AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we 
determine that it has probative value and is corroborated to the extent 
practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Therefore, 
we have assigned this AFA rate of 90.83%, as established in the 
investigation, to exports of the subject merchandise by PRC-wide 
entity, including Angang.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The PRC-wide entity includes, Angang; Bengang Steel Plates 
Co., Ltd.; Benxi Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Daye Special Steel 
Co., Ltd.; Dongbei Special Steel Group; Dongguang Bo Yunte Metal 
Co., Ltd.; Dongyang Global Strip Steel Co., Ltd.; Haverer Group 
Ltd.; Hebei Iron and Steel Int'l; Hunan Valin; Jinan Iron & Steel 
Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Zhaoheng Specialty Steel Co.; Union Steel China; 
Xinyu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Shenghua Steel Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    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, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed 
electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully 
in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA 
ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice.\26\ Requests should contain the party's 
name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a 
list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, 
the Department will inform parties of the scheduled date for the 
hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 
location to be determined.\27\ Parties should confirm by telephone the 
date, time, and location of the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \27\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review within 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register.\28\ Interested parties may file 
rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs not later 
than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.\29\ Parties 
who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a 
statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of 
authorities cited. The Department intends to issue the final results of 
this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of 
issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results in the Federal Register.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
    \29\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
    \30\ See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review.\31\ The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess duties at the ad 
valorem margin rate published above. We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if 
any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is 
above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis 
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise 
covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of 
estimated duties, where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Angang, the cash 
deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this 
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash 
deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate 
rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate

[[Page 45580]]

will be the PRC-wide rate of 90.83 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 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)(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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

     Dated: July 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-18831 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P