Notice: Antidumping: Furfuryl Alcohol From&#8212 Sweden

59082 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.
194 / Friday, October 6, 2006 / Notices
signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 2004–2055 Administrative Review, 71
temporarily suspends the authority of and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess FR 25813 (May 2, 2006).
the Department to instruct U.S. Customs antidumping duties on all appropriate On May 19, 2006, we issued to FSAB
and Border Protection (CBP) to collect a entries. a second sections B and C supplemental
bond or other security in lieu of a cash EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006.
questionnaire for which it submitted its
deposit in new shipper reviews. response on June 19, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On June 8, we issued to FSAB a
Therefore, the posting of a bond under Brian C. Smith, AD/CVD Operations,
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in sections D and E second supplemental
Office 2, Import Administration-Room questionnaire to which it submitted its
lieu of a cash deposit is not available in B–099, International Trade
this case. Importers of subject response on July 6, 2006.
Administration, U.S. Department of On June 19 and 22, 2006, we met with
merchandise manufactured and Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
exported by Micro and Pradeep must counsel for FSAB and the petitioners,
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; respectively, at their requests, to discuss
continue to post a cash deposit of telephone: (202) 482–1766.
estimated antidumping duties on each FSAB’s proposal that the Department
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: include an additional criterion (i.e.,
entry of subject merchandise at the
current all–others rate of 162.14 percent. Background electro-slag refining (‘‘ESR’’)) to the
Interested parties may submit current model-matching criteria used in
On September 15, 1998, the this administrative review (see June 21,
applications for disclosure under Department published in the Federal
administrative protective order in 2006, Memorandum to the File, entitled,
Register an antidumping duty order on Ex-Parte Meeting with FSAB; and June
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and SSWR from Sweden. See Notice of
351.306. 28, 2006, Memorandum to the File,
Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless entitled, Ex-Parte Meeting with Counsel
This initiation and this notice are
Steel Wire Rod from Sweden, 63 FR for the Petitioners).
issued and published in accordance
49329 (‘‘SSWR Order’’). On September As a result of the above-mentioned
with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and
30, 2005, the petitioners submitted a meetings, we issued letters to FSAB and
sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(c)(1)(i)
letter timely requesting that the the petitioners on July 10, 2006, in
of the Department’s regulations.
Department conduct an administrative which we invited them to comment
Dated: September 29, 2006. review of the sales of SSWR made by further on this matter. On July 12, 2006,
Stephen Claeys, FSAB, pursuant to section 751 of the we met with a Swedish Embassy
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the official, at the Swedish Embassy’s
Administration. Act’’). The Department published a request, to discuss the ESR matter (see
[FR Doc. E6–16517 Filed 10–5–06; 8:45 am] notice of initiation of an administrative July 13, 2006, Memorandum to the File,
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S review with respect to FSAB. See entitled, Ex-Parte Meeting with Swedish
Initiation of Antidumping and Embassy Official). In response to the
Countervailing Duty Reviews, 70 FR Department’s July 10, 2006, letters, both
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 61601 (October 25, 2005). On November parties submitted comments on July 17,
7, 2005, we issued an antidumping duty 2006. On July 24, 2006, only FSAB
International Trade Administration questionnaire to FSAB. FSAB submitted submitted rebuttal comments on this
[A–401–806] its section A questionnaire response in matter.
December 2005 and responses to the In order to fully consider the parties’
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From remaining sections of the questionnaire comments on the ESR matter, we fully
Sweden: Preliminary Results of in January 2006. We also issued to extended the time limit for the
Antidumping Duty Administrative FSAB a section A supplemental preliminary results in this review until
Review questionnaire in January 2006 and a October 2, 2006. See Stainless Steel
sections B and C supplemental Wire Rod from Sweden: Notice of
AGENCY: Import Administration,
questionnaire in February 2006. We Extension of Time Limit for 2004–2055
International Trade Administration,
received FSAB’s timely responses to Administrative Review, 71 FR 40698
Department of Commerce.
these supplemental questionnaires in (July 18, 2006).
SUMMARY: In response to a timely
March and April 2006, respectively. On July 28, 2006, we issued to FSAB
request by the petitioners,1 the On April 13, 2006, we issued a a third sections D and E supplemental
Department of Commerce (‘‘the decision memorandum which outlined questionnaire to which it submitted its
Department’’) is conducting an the Department’s basis for collapsing response on August 18, 2006.
administrative review of the FSAB with its affiliates, AB Sandvik
antidumping duty order on stainless Materials Technology (‘‘SMT’’) and Scope of the Order
steel wire rod (‘‘SSWR’’) from Sweden Kanthal AB (‘‘Kanthal’’), and treating For purposes of this order, SSWR
with respect to Fagersta Stainless AB them as a single entity in this review. comprises products that are hot-rolled
(‘‘FSAB’’). The period of review See April 13, 2006, Memorandum from or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled
(‘‘POR’’) is September 1, 2004, through the Team to The File, entitled, Stainless and/or descaled rounds, squares,
August 31, 2005. Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Whether octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in
We preliminarily determine that sales to Collapse FSAB, SMT, and Kanthal. coils, that may also be coated with a
have been made below normal value Also, on April 13, 2006, we issued to lubricant containing copper, lime or
(‘‘NV’’). Interested parties are invited to FSAB a supplemental sections D and E oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels
comment on the preliminary results. If questionnaire to which it submitted its containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
the preliminary results are adopted in response on May 11, 2006. less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more
our final results of administrative On April 26, 2006, we extended the of chromium, with or without other
1 The petitioners include the following
time limit for the preliminary results in elements. These products are
companies: Carpenter Technology Corporation,
this review until August 1, 2006. See manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-
Dunkirk Specialty Steel, LLC Clearon Corporation Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/
and Occidental Chemical Corporation. Notice of Extension of Time Limit for or descaling, are normally sold in coiled
VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:52 Oct 05, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM 06OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 194 / Friday, October 6, 2006 / Notices 59083
form, and are of solid cross-section. The represents the smallest size that SF20T and K–M35FL are excluded. The
majority of SSWR sold in the United normally is produced on a rolling mill following proprietary grades of Kanthal
States is round in cross-sectional shape, and is the size that most wire-drawing AB are also excluded: Kanthal A–1,
annealed and pickled, and later cold- machines are set up to draw. The range Kanthal AF, Kanthal A, Kanthal D,
finished into stainless steel wire or of SSWR sizes normally sold in the Kanthal DT, Alkrothal 14, Alkrothal
small-diameter bar. The most common United States is between 0.20 inches 720, and Nikrothal 40. The chemical
size for such products is 5.5 millimeters and 1.312 inches in diameter. makeup for the excluded grades is as
or 0.217 inches in diameter, which Certain stainless steel grades are follows:
excluded from the scope of the order.
SF20T
Carbon ........................................... 0.05 max ....................................... Chromium ..................................... 19.00/21.00.

Manganese .................................... 2.00 max ....................................... Molybdenum ................................. 1.50/2.50.
Phosphorous .................................. 0.05 max ....................................... Lead .............................................. added (0.10/0.30).
Sulfur .............................................. 0.15 max ....................................... Tellurium ....................................... added (0.03 min).
Silicon ............................................ 1.00 max.
K–M35FL
Carbon ........................................... 0.015 max ..................................... Nickel ............................................ 0.30 max.

Silicon ............................................ 0.70/1.00 ....................................... Chromium ..................................... 12.50/14.00.
Manganese .................................... 0.40 max ....................................... Lead .............................................. 0.10/0.30.
Phosphorous .................................. 0.04 max ....................................... Aluminum ...................................... 0.20/0.35.
Sulfur .............................................. 0.03 max.
Kanthal A–1
Carbon ........................................... 0.08 max ....................................... Aluminum ...................................... 5.30 min, 6.30 max.
Silicon ............................................ 0.70 max ....................................... Iron ................................................ balance.
Manganese .................................... 0.40 max ....................................... Chromium ..................................... 20.50 min, 23.50 max.
Kanthal AF
Manganese .................................... 0.40 max.
Chromium ...................................... 20.50 min, 23.50 max.
Kanthal A
Manganese .................................... 0.50 max.
Chromium ...................................... 20.50 min, 23.50 max.
Kanthal D
Manganese .................................... 0.50 max.
Chromium ...................................... 20.50 min, 23.50 max.
Kanthal DT
Manganese .................................... 0.50 max.
Chromium ...................................... 20.50 min, 23.50 max.
Alkrothal 14
Manganese .................................... 0.50 max.
Chromium ...................................... 14.00 min, 16.00 max.
Alkrothal 720
Manganese .................................... 0.70 max.
Chromium ...................................... 12.00 min, 14.00 max.
59084 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 194 / Friday, October 6, 2006 / Notices
Nikrothal 40
Carbon ........................................... 0.10 max ....................................... Nickel ............................................ 34.00 min, 37.00 max.
Silicon ............................................ 1.60 min, 2.50 max ....................... Iron ................................................ balance.
Manganese .................................... 1.00 max.
Chromium ...................................... 18.00 min, 21.00 max.
The subject merchandise is currently response’’), FSAB requested that the ESR to the model-matching criteria will
classifiable under subheadings Department include an additional result in more reasonable price-to-price
7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, characteristic, ESR,2 in the above-noted comparisons. Also, FSAB asserts that
7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and model-matching criteria and also although remelting was never
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff consider it as one of the most significant considered in the less-than-fair-value
Schedule of the United States physical characteristics in the product (‘‘LFTV’’) segment of the proceeding, it
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS matching hierarchy. In support of its should be considered in this review.
subheadings are provided for request, FSAB provided data in its Finally, FSAB notes that the Department
convenience and customs purposes, the questionnaire responses 3 to has recognized ESR remelting as a
written description of the scope of this demonstrate that ESR, one of two significant product matching criterion
order is dispositive. remelting methods 4 used by FSAB, is a in proceedings concerning stainless
separate processing stage in the steel bar (‘‘SSB’’), another stainless steel
Fair Value Comparisons production of billets, which are used in product.
To determine whether sales of SSWR the production of certain subject SSWR The petitioner maintains that the
by FSAB to the United States were made products. FSAB states that ESR removes Department should not alter the existing
at less than NV, we compared certain inclusions, or impurities, from model-matching criteria because, while
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to the the steel (e.g., aluminum nitride), remelting has been used in SSWR
NV, as described in the ‘‘Constructed making it stronger and less prone to production since before the Department
Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ breaking under stress. Through conducted the LTFV segment of this
sections of this notice. subsequent supplemental proceeding, the Department has never
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the questionnaires issued to FSAB on its used it as a matching criterion in this
Act, we compared the CEPs of ESR process, we requested that FSAB proceeding. The petitioner asserts that,
individual U.S. transactions to the provide more information on the ESR unlike in SSB production, ESR is only
weighted-average NV of the foreign like method of remelting, as well as VAR required in limited situations (e.g.,
product where there were sales made in remelting. As mentioned in the aeronautical use) and is not commonly
the ordinary course of trade, as ‘‘Background’’ section of this notice, we used in the SSWR industry. Moreover,
discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production also met with FSAB representatives on the petitioner argues that if the
Analysis’’ section below. June 19, 2006, to discuss the ESR Department were to consider including
matter. In addition, we provided the remelting (i.e., both ESR and VAR) in
Product Comparisons parties in this review the opportunity to the matching criteria, the Department
In accordance with section 771(16) of comment on this matter. would also need to consider other
the Act, we considered all products As support for its request that additional production steps or special
produced by FSAB covered by the remelting be added to the model- operations (e.g., double annealing,
description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ matching criteria, FSAB claims that ESR shaving) as matching criteria.
section, above, to be foreign like and VAR remelting impart important When identical merchandise is not
products for purposes of determining physical characteristics, as evidenced by available in the home market for
appropriate product comparisons to the fact that it uses both remelting comparison to merchandise sold to the
U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR methods to produce many of its SSWR United States, the Department will
351.414(e)(2)(ii), we compared U.S. grades.5 FSAB also emphasizes that ESR compare ‘‘similar’’ merchandise based
sales to sales made in the home market has a significant impact on the price and upon the physical characteristics of the
within the contemporaneous window production costs of certain SSWR grades merchandise being compared. See
period, which extends from three which, if not taken into account, results section 771(16)(B) of the Act. The
months prior to the month of the U.S. in inaccurate product comparisons. As statute also instructs the Department to
sale until two months after the sale. such, FSAB argues that the addition of compare merchandise that is produced
Where there were no sales of identical in the same country and by the same
merchandise in the comparison market 2 FSAB subsequently stated in its July 17, 2006,
person as the subject merchandise; like
submission that its request to include ESR in the that subject merchandise in component
made in the ordinary course of trade to matching criteria also included other forms of
compare to U.S. sales, we compared remelting, as well. material or materials and in the
U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 3 See January 11, 2006, section B Response at purposes for which used; and
foreign like product made in the pages B–2 through B–6, Exhibit B–1, and Exhibit B– approximately equal in commercial
2; January 18, 2006, section C Response at page C– value to the subject merchandise.
ordinary course of trade. In making the 3; April 4, 2006, Supplemental Questionnaire
product comparisons, we matched Response at pages 9 through 19, and Exhibits S–6 Section 771(16)(C) of the Act instructs
foreign like products based on the through S–12; and June 19, 2006, Supplemental that, where no matches can be found
Response at pages 1–2. under section 771(16)(B) of the Act,
physical characteristics reported by 4 Remelting may be done using different methods,
three criteria must be met to consider a
FSAB in the following hierarchical such as ESR and vacuum arc refining (‘‘VAR’’).
order: grade, diameter, further 5 Although FSAB’s main focus is with ESR, FSAB product similar to the U.S. model: (1)
processing, and coating. subsequently clarified in its July 17, 2006, The comparison-market model must be
submission that it also views VAR in the same produced in the same country and by
Electro-Slag Refining manner. However, because VAR, unlike ESR, has the same person and of the same general
not been argued extensively by FSAB, we have for
In its January 11, 2006, section B the most part limited our discussion of remelting class or kind as the merchandise which
questionnaire response (‘‘section B to ESR. is the subject of the investigation; (2) the
comparison-market model must be like demonstrated that the addition of ESR for the account of FSAB by its
that merchandise in the purposes for to the model-matching criteria would subsidiary, FSI, in the United States to
which used; and (3) the comparison- result in greater accuracy in comparing unaffiliated purchasers, or subsequently
market model must be found to be the foreign like product to the single further manufactured into non-subject
reasonably comparable to the U.S. most similar U.S. model. In particular, merchandise by its affiliate, SMT U.S.,
model by the Department. the physical differences associated with in the United States and then resold to
When the Department has an remelting appear to be minor, its unaffiliated customers.
established model-matching specifically with respect to the chemical We based CEP on the packed prices to
methodology in a proceeding, it may composition of the steel grade itself. In unaffiliated purchasers in the United
alter its established methodology if addition, price and cost differences States. We identified the correct starting
there is a reasonable basis for doing so. associated with a different production price by adjusting for alloy surcharges,
See NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, process do not necessarily warrant an freight revenue, and billing adjustments
295 F. 3rd 1263, 1269 (CIT 2002). With alteration of the model-matching associated with the sale, and by making
respect to changes to its model- criteria. The important question is deductions for early payment discounts
matching methodology, the Department whether the different production and volume rebates, where applicable,
has applied a ‘‘compelling reasons’’ process has a significant impact on the as required by section 772 of the Act.
standard, which is fully consistent, if physical characteristics of the subject We also made deductions for movement
not more rigorous, than the principles merchandise. In this case, again, we find expenses in accordance with section
applied by the courts in reviewing the that the impact is minor. Further, 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These expenses
Department’s determination to alter or because the physical differences included, where appropriate, foreign
change its practice. See Ball Bearings resulting from ESR remelting are inland freight (including freight from
and Parts Thereof From France, associated with just a single sale of one the plant to the port of exportation),
Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and particular grade in the home market, we brokerage and handling, ocean freight,
the United Kingdom: Final Results of preliminarily find that altering our marine insurance, U.S. inland freight
Antidumping Duty Administrative model-matching criteria by adding ESR expenses (including freight from the
Review, 70 FR 54711 (September 16, remelting as a matching criterion would U.S. port to the U.S. customer or
2005), and accompanying Issues and not have a significant impact on the
warehouse and freight from the
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 number of reasonable price-to-price
warehouse to the unaffiliated customer),
(‘‘Ball Bearings’’). Compelling reasons comparisons.
that warrant a change to the model- FSAB further argues that the U.S. customs fees (including harbor
matching methodology may include, for Department should use remelting as a maintenance fees and merchandise
example, greater accuracy in comparing model matching criterion in this review processing fees), and warehousing
foreign like product to the single most because it is used for matching purposes expenses. In accordance with section
similar U.S. model, in accordance with in a proceeding involving another 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those
section 771(16)(B) of the Act, or a stainless steel product (i.e., SSB). selling expenses associated with
greater number of reasonable price-to- However, we note that in other economic activities occurring in the
price comparisons in accordance with proceedings involving stainless steel United States, including direct selling
section 773(a)(1) of the Act. products, the Department has not used expenses (credit expenses, warranty
According to the information remelting as a model-matching expenses, advertising expenses, and
contained in FSAB’s questionnaire criterion.6 Moreover, in SSB, the repacking expenses) and indirect selling
responses, FSAB used ESR remelting for Department determined that remelting expenses (including inventory carrying
the production of only one select grade was an appropriate product matching costs) incurred in the country of
of SSWR sold in the home market criterion based on the case-specific exportation and the United States. We
during the POR, while the same grade, information on the record of that also deducted an amount for further-
produced without ESR remelting, was proceeding (see September 29, 2006, manufacturing costs, where applicable,
sold in the U.S. market during the POR. memorandum to the file, which in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of
As such, the ESR remelting issue includes discussion of remelting in the the Act, and made an adjustment for
pertains to only one grade used in the SSB proceeding). profit in accordance with section
price-to-price comparisons. Moreover, After considering the information 772(d)(3) of the Act. To calculate the
FSAB made just one sale of this single provided by FSAB and the cost of further manufacturing, we relied
grade in the home market during the determination in Ball Bearings, we on SMT U.S.’s reported cost of further
POR. Finally, FSAB’s data also indicate believe that record evidence does not manufacturing materials, labor, and
that FSAB had no sales of SSWR in provide a reasonable basis for changing overhead, plus amounts for further
either market for which any other form the model-matching criteria as manufacturing and financial expenses.
of remelting, such as VAR, was used in suggested by FSAB. Therefore, the We adjusted FSAB’s reported general
the production process. Department has preliminarily and administrative expenses (‘‘G&A’’)
The data contained in FSAB’s determined to not modify the model- for further manufacturing by including
questionnaire responses indicate that matching criteria used in this review. material costs in the denominator of the
remelting (i.e., ESR and VAR) appears to further manufacturer’s G&A expense
impart certain physical characteristics Constructed Export Price rate calculation. We applied the G&A
(e.g., fewer impurities, increased We calculated CEP in accordance expense rate to the sum of SMT U.S.’s
tolerance) to the billets used to produce with section 772(b) of the Act because COM and FSAB’s COP for that
subject merchandise compared to billets the subject merchandise was either sold merchandise. For further details
for which remelting was not used. In regarding this adjustment, please see the
addition, there appear to be certain 6 Other cases involving stainless steel products Memorandum from Michael Harrison,
price and cost differences associated for which remelting is not a model-matching Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper,
characteristic include the following: stainless steel
with ESR remelting with respect to the butt-weld pipe fittings (e.g., A–475–828), stainless
Director of Accounting, ‘‘Cost of
production of FSAB’s one affected steel sheet and strip and coils (e.g., A–583–831), Production and Constructed Value
grade. However, FSAB has not and stainless steel plate in coils (e.g., A–583–830). Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Results—Fagersta Stainless selling activities are a necessary, but not (1) Sales of FSAB-produced SSWR to its
AB’’ (‘‘COP/CV Memo’’) dated sufficient, condition for determining U.S. affiliate FSI (‘‘U.S. Channel 1’’),
September 29, 2006. that there is a difference in the stages of and (2) sales of FSAB-produced SSWR
marketing (Id.); see also Notice of Final to its U.S. affiliate SMT U.S. (which
Normal Value
Determination of Sales at Less Than further manufactured the SSWR into
A. Home Market Viability Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length wire products for sale to its unaffiliated
Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, U.S. customers) (‘‘U.S. Channel 2’’). We
In order to determine whether there
62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, compared the selling activities
was a sufficient volume of sales in the
1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order performed in each channel, and found
home market to serve as a viable basis
to determine whether the comparison that the same selling functions (i.e.,
for calculating NV, we compared the
sales were at different stages in the sales process/marketing support and
volume of home market sales of the
marketing process than the U.S. sales, freight/delivery) were performed at the
foreign like product to the volume of
we reviewed the distribution system in same relative level of intensity in both
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
each market (i.e., the chain of channels of distribution. With regard to
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of
distribution), including selling the other two selling functions
the Act. considered in this analysis (i.e.,
Because FSAB’s aggregate volume of functions, class of customer (customer
category), and the level of selling warehousing/inventory and quality
home market sales of the foreign like assurance/warranty service), we find
product was greater than five percent of expenses for each type of sale.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of that the differences are insignificant
its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the between U.S. Channel 1 and U.S.
the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and
subject merchandise, we determined Channel 2. As a result, both U.S.
comparison market sales (i.e., NV based
that its home market was viable. channels, on balance, are at the same
on either home market or third country
B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and prices),7 we consider the starting prices LOT. Accordingly, we find that all CEP
Arm’s-Length Test before any adjustments. For CEP sales, sales constitute one LOT. For further
we consider only the selling activities discussion on this matter, see
During the POR, FSAB sold the September 29, 2006, Memorandum to
foreign like product to an affiliated reflected in the price after the deduction
of expenses and profit under section the File, entitled, Preliminary Results
customer. To test whether these sales Level of Trade Analysis for FSAB (‘‘LOT
were made at arm’s-length prices, we 772(d) of the Act. See Micron
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. Memo’’).
compared, on a product-specific basis, With respect to the home market,
the starting prices of sales to affiliated 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
When the Department is unable to FSAB reported one channel of
and unaffiliated customers, net of all distribution (i.e., factory direct sales)
discounts and rebates, movement match U.S. sales of the foreign like
product in the comparison market at the through which it sold SSWR to both
charges, direct selling expenses, and affiliated and unaffiliated end-user
packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR same LOT as the EP or CEP, the
Department may compare the U.S. sale customers. According to FSAB, its
351.403(c) and in accordance with the direct sales to both affiliated and
Department’s practice, where the price to sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market. In comparing EP or unaffiliated home market customers
to the affiliated party was, on average, constitute one distinct LOT in the home
within a range of 98 to 102 percent of CEP sales at a different LOT in the
comparison market, where available market.
the price of the same or comparable In determining whether separate
merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, data make it practicable, we make an
LOT adjustment under section LOTs exist in the home market, we
we determined that sales made to the compared the selling functions
affiliated party were at arm’s length. See 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP
performed across all channels of
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated sales only, if the NV LOT is more
distribution. After our analysis of the
Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of remote from the factory than the CEP
information submitted for the record of
Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November LOT and there is no basis for
this review, we find that all home
15, 2002) (establishing that the overall determining whether the difference in
market sales were made at the same
ratio calculated for an affiliate must be LOTs between NV and CEP affects price
LOT. See LOT Memo.
between 98 percent and 102 percent in comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to
order for sales to be considered in the was practicable), the Department shall the home market LOT and found that
ordinary course of trade and used in the grant a CEP offset, as provided in the selling functions performed for
NV calculation). Sales to the affiliated section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate home market sales are either performed
customer in the home market that were from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732. We at the same degree of intensity (or only
not made at arm’s-length prices were obtained information from FSAB vary slightly) as the selling functions
excluded from our analysis because we regarding the marketing stages involved performed for U.S. sales. Specifically,
considered these sales to be outside the in making the reported foreign market we find that three of the four selling
ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR and U.S. sales, including a description functions (i.e., freight/delivery,
351.102(b). of the selling activities performed for warehousing/inventory, and quality
each channel of distribution. assurance/warranty service) are
Level of Trade FSAB only sold SSWR to end-users in performed by FSAB at the same level of
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act the home market, but sold to both end- intensity in both the U.S. and home
states that, to the extent practicable, the users and distributors in the U.S. markets. With respect to the remaining
Department will calculate NV based on market. FSAB reported that it made CEP selling function (i.e., sales process/
sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) sales in the U.S. market through the marketing support), we find that there is
as the export price (‘‘EP’’) or CEP. Sales following two channels of distribution: only a slight difference in the level of
are made at different LOTs if they are 1 Where NV is based on constructed value (‘‘CV’’),
intensity between the home and U.S.
made at different marketing stages (or we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the
market. Therefore, we find that the NV
their equivalent). See 19 CFR sales from which we derive selling expenses, G & LOT and single U.S. LOT are at the
351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in A expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. same LOT.
As home market and U.S. sales were adjustments, where appropriate) were surcharges) to unaffiliated customers or
made at the same LOT, we have exclusive of any applicable movement prices to affiliated customers that were
matched CEP sales to home market sales charges, rebates, discounts, and direct determined to be at arm’s length. We
at the same LOT. and indirect selling expenses and made adjustments, where appropriate,
packing expenses, revised where to the starting price for billing
Cost of Production Analysis
appropriate, as discussed below under adjustments, discounts, and rebates. We
In the LTFV investigation, the most the ‘‘Price-to-Price Comparisons’’ made deductions, where appropriate,
recently completed segment of this section. In determining whether to from the starting price for inland freight
proceeding as of November 7, 2005, the disregard home market sales made at (from the plant to the customer) and
date the questionnaire was issued in prices less than their COP, we inland insurance, under section
this review, we found that FSAB had examined, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also made
made sales below the cost of 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether deductions from the starting price for
production. See Notice of Preliminary such sales were made: (1) Within an credit, warranty, and other direct selling
Determination of Sales at Less Than extended period of time, (2) in expenses, under section 773 of the Act.
Fair Value and Postponement of Final substantial quantities, and (3) at prices We made adjustments for differences
Determination: Stainless Steel Wire Rod which did not permit the recovery of all in costs attributable to differences in the
From Sweden, 63 FR 10841, 10846 costs within a reasonable period of time. physical characteristics of the
(March 5, 1998); affirmed in Notice of
C. Results of the COP Test merchandise in accordance with section
Final Determination of Sales at Less
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire In determining whether to disregard
351.411. We also deducted home market
Rod from Sweden, 63 FR 40449, 40452 home market sales made at prices below
packing costs and added U.S. packing
(July 29, 1998) (‘‘SSWR from Sweden the COP, we examined, in accordance
costs, in accordance with section
LTFV Final’’). Thus, in accordance with with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) or the
Act: (1) Whether, within an extended 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there
are reasonable grounds to believe or period of time, such sales were made in Calculation of Constructed Value
suspect that FSAB made sales in the substantial quantities; and (2) whether
such sales were made at prices which We calculated CV in accordance with
home market at prices below the cost of
permitted the recovery of all costs section 773(e) of the Act, which states
producing the merchandise in the
within a reasonable period of time in that CV shall be based on the sum of the
current review period. Accordingly, we
the normal course of trade. Where less respondent’s cost of materials and
instructed FSAB to respond to the
than 20 percent of the respondent’s fabrication for the subject merchandise,
section D (Cost of Production)
home market sales of a given product plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit
questionnaire.
are at prices less than the COP, we do and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the
A. Calculation of Cost of Production not disregard any below-cost sales of submitted CV information except for the
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) that product because we determine that adjustments described above under
of the Act, we calculated FSAB’s cost of in such instances the below-cost sales ‘‘Calculation of Cost of Production.’’
production (‘‘COP’’) based on the sum of were not made within an extended Price-to-Constructed Value
FSAB’s costs of materials and period of time and in ‘‘substantial Comparisons
conversion for the foreign like product, quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more
plus amounts for G&A expenses and of a respondent’s sales of a given We based NV on CV for comparison
interest expenses (see ‘‘Test of Home product are at prices less than the COP, to certain U.S. sales, in accordance with
Market Sales Prices’’ section below for we disregard the below-cost sales section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For
treatment of home market selling because: (1) They were made within an comparisons to FSAB’s CEP sales, we
expenses). The Department relied on the extended period of time in ‘‘substantial made circumstance-of-sale adjustments
COP data submitted by FSAB in its quantities,’’ in accordance with sections by deducting from CV the weighted-
August 18, 2006, supplemental section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) average home market direct selling
D questionnaire response, except in the based on our comparison of prices to the expenses, in accordance with section
following instances noted below. weighted-average COPs for the POR, 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
In accordance with section 773(f)(3) of they were at prices which would not Currency Conversion
the Act, the Department adjusted permit the recovery of all costs within
FSAB’s transfer price of billets a reasonable period of time, in We made currency conversions in
purchased from its affiliate, accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of accordance with section 773A of the Act
Outokumpu. For further details the Act. based on the exchange rates in effect on
regarding this adjustment, please see the We found that, for certain specific the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by
COP/CV Memo. products, more than 20 percent of the Federal Reserve Bank.
FSAB’s home market sales were at Preliminary Results of Review
B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
prices less than the COP and, in
On a product-specific basis, we addition, such sales did not provide for As a result of this review, we
compared the adjusted weighted- the recovery of costs within a reasonable preliminarily determine that the
average COP to the home market sales period of time. We therefore excluded weighted-average dumping margin for
of the foreign like product, as required these sales and used the remaining sales the period September 1, 2004, through
under section 773(b) of the Act, in order as the basis for determining NV, in August 31, 2005, is as follows:
to determine whether the sale prices
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

were below the COP. For purposes of Act. Percent
Manufacturer/exporter
this comparison, we used COP exclusive margin
of selling and packing expenses. The Price-to-Price Comparisons
prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges, As discussed in the ‘‘Normal Value’’ Fagersta Stainless AB (which also
includes AB Sandvik Materials
freight revenue, service charge revenue, section above, we calculated NV based Technology and Kanthal AB) .... 30.18
processing charge revenue and billing on delivered prices (inclusive of alloy
We will disclose the calculations used will issue appropriate appraisement deposit rate for all other manufacturers
in our analysis to parties to this instructions for the company subject to or exporters will continue to be 5.71
proceeding within five days of the this review directly to CBP within 15 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made
publication date of this notice. See 19 days of publication of the final results effective by the LTFV investigation. See
CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party of this review. SSWR Order. These requirements, when
may request a hearing within 30 days of For assessment purposes, we imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If calculated importer-specific ad valorem publication of the final results of the
requested, a hearing will be scheduled duty assessment rates based on the ratio next administrative review.
after determination of the briefing of the total amount of dumping margins
schedule. calculated for the examined sales to the Notification to Importers
Interested parties who wish to request total entered value of those same sales. This notice also serves as a
a hearing or to participate if one is However, for subject merchandise preliminary reminder to importers of
requested, must submit a written produced by FSAB but imported on their responsibility under 19 CFR
request to the Assistant Secretary for behalf of its U.S. affiliate, SMT U.S., we 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
Import Administration, Room B–099, do not have the actual entered value the reimbursement of antidumping
within 30 days of the date of publication because FSAB was unable to obtain the duties prior to liquidation of the
of this notice. Requests should contain: entered value data for their reported relevant entries during this review
(1) The party’s name, address and sales from the importer of record. period. Failure to comply with this
telephone number; (2) the number of Therefore, for those entries of subject requirement could result in the
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be merchandise imported by SMT U.S., we Secretary’s presumption that
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). intend to calculate the importer-specific reimbursement of antidumping duties
Issues raised in the hearing will be assessment rate by aggregating the occurred and the subsequent assessment
limited to those raised in the respective dumping margins calculated for all of of double antidumping duties.
case briefs. Case briefs from interested the U.S. sales examined and dividing This administrative review and notice
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the that amount by the total quantity of the are published in accordance with
issues raised in the respective case sales examined. sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
briefs, may be submitted in accordance We will instruct CBP to assess Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
with a schedule to be determined. antidumping duties on all appropriate
Dated: September 29, 2006.
Parties who submit case briefs or entries covered by this review if any
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are importer-specific assessment rate Stephen J. Claeys,
requested to submit with each argument calculated in the final results of this Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a review is above de minimis (i.e., at or Administration.
brief summary of the argument. Parties above 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR [FR Doc. E6–16518 Filed 10–5–06; 8:45 am]
are also encouraged to provide a 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
summary of the arguments not to exceed review shall be the basis for the
five pages and a table of statutes, assessment of antidumping duties on
regulations, and cases cited. entries of merchandise covered by the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Department will issue the final final results of this review and for future
results of this administrative review, deposits of estimated duties, where International Trade Administration
including the results of its analysis of applicable. A–570–890
issues raised in any written briefs, not
Cash Deposit Requirements Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
later than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to The following cash deposit People’s Republic of China: Extension
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. requirements will be effective for all of Time Limits for the Preliminary
shipments of the subject merchandise Results of the Antidumping Duty
Assessment Rates entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, Administrative Review and New
The Department clarified its for consumption on or after the Shipper Reviews
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on publication date of the final results of
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This this administrative review, as provided AGENCY: Import Administration,
clarification will apply to entries of by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The International Trade Administration,
subject merchandise during the POR cash deposit rate for the reviewed Department of Commerce.
produced by the company included in company will be that established in the EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006.
these preliminary results of review for final results of this review, except if the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit
which the reviewed company did not rate is less than 0.50 percent, and Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations,
know its merchandise was destined for therefore, de minimis within the Office 8, Import Administration,
the United States. In such instances, we meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in International Trade Administration,
will instruct CBP to liquidate which case the cash deposit rate will be U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
unreviewed entries at the All Others zero; (2) for previously reviewed or Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
rate if there is no rate for the investigated companies not listed above, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
intermediate company(ies) involved in the cash deposit rate will continue to be 482–6412.
the transaction. For a full discussion of the company-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) if the Background
this clarification, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: exporter is not a firm covered in this The Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 review, a prior review, or the original Department’’) published an
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). LTFV investigation, but the antidumping duty order on wooden
The Department shall determine, and manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate bedroom furniture (‘‘WBF’’) from the
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on will be the rate established for the most People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) on
all appropriate entries, in accordance recent period for the manufacturer of January 4, 2005. See Notice of Amended
with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department the merchandise; and (4) the cash Final Determination of Sales at Less

Notice: Antidumping: Furfuryl Alcohol From&#8212 Sweden

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Notice: Antidumping: Furfuryl Alcohol From&#8212 Sweden

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

59082 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

194 / Friday, October 6, 2006 / Notices

Carbon ........................................... 0.05 max ....................................... Chromium ..................................... 19.00/21.00.

Carbon ........................................... 0.015 max ..................................... Nickel ............................................ 0.30 max.

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Вам также может понравиться