[Federal Register: March 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 11178-11183]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06mr06-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-826]
Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From
Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by Nucor Corporation (Nucor), the
[[Page 11179]]
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-
quality steel plate products (CTL Plate) from Italy. The period of
review (POR) is February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005.
This review covers five producers/exporters of subject merchandise.
Based upon our analysis of the record evidence, we preliminarily find
that the application of adverse facts available (AFA) is warranted with
respect to Palini and Bertoli S.p.A. (Palini). Further, we are
preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Trametal S.p.A.
(Trametal) because there is no entry against which to collect duties.
We are also preliminarily rescinding the review for Ilva S.p.A. (Ilva),
Metalcam S.p.A. (Metalcam) and Riva Fire S.p.A. (Riva Fire), because
they had no shipments during the POR. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment
on these preliminary results of review. We will issue the final results
of review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Mark Manning; AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3936 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 10, 2000, the Department published an antidumping duty
order on CTL Plate from Italy. See Notice of Amendment of Final
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Orders: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From
France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR
6585 (February 10, 2000) (Amended Final and Orders). On February 1,
2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 70 FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on February 28, 2005, Nucor, a domestic
producer of subject merchandise requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of Palini, Ilva, Metalcam, Riva Fire, and
Trametal. On March 23, 2005, the Department published a notice of
initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
CTL Plate from Italy covering the period February 1, 2004 through
January 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 14643
(March 23, 2005).
On May 11, 2005, the Department issued section A of the antidumping
duty questionnaire to Palini, Ilva, Metalcam, Riva Fire, and Trametal.
In response, Ilva, Metalcam, and Riva Fire informed the Department via
letters dated May 24, 2005, and May 30, 2005, that they did not ship
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department
received no response from Palini or Trametal. On June 6, 2005, the
Department sent a letter to Palini and Trametal asking whether the
reason they had not responded to the questionnaire was because they had
made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during
the POR.
On June 13, 2005, Trametal informed the Department that it made one
sale of subject merchandise to the United States. The Department
confirmed Trametal's claim of a single U.S. sale by reviewing CBP
import data and entry documents. Although the entry documents appear to
indicate that Trametal shipped subject merchandise in its single sale
to the United States during the POR, the importer did not enter the
goods as subject to the antidumping order, and CBP liquidated the entry
under its own authority. There is no evidence to indicate that Trametal
has any connection to this importer.
On June 14, 2005, Palini informed the Department that if there were
any exports to the United States, they were made through an
unaffiliated Canadian customer, and it did not know what portion of its
sales to that customer were ultimately shipped to the U.S. market. The
Department reviewed CBP data and entry documentation and found that
certain entry documents appeared to contradict Palini's claim that it
had no knowledge of which sales to its Canadian customer entered the
United States. On January 5, 2006, the Department sent Palini a
supplemental questionnaire, asking additional questions about its sales
to the Canadian customer, during the POR, and whether Palini had
knowledge of the port of discharge of those sales.
In its response to the Department's January 25, 2006, supplemental
questionnaire, Palini explained that, at the time of cargo readiness,
its customer advises Palini of the discharge port for sales to the
United States and Canada. Palini noted that, although some shipments
were sent directly to the United States, it did not know whether the
merchandise remained in the United States, or if it was re-exported
from the United States to Canada.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the scope of this order are certain hot-
rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-
rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a
width exceeding 150 mm but no exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or
actual thickness of not less then 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in
coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality
steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual
thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and
measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not
in coils). Steel products to be included in this scope are of
rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-
rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have
been ``worked after rolling'')-for example, products which have been
beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted
physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with
plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this
scope. Also, specifically included in this scope are high strength, low
alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-
alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium,
titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in
this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2)
the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of
the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by
weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50
percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of cooper, 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
[[Page 11180]]
molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the
written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do
not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the
scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The
following products are specifically excluded from this order: (1)
Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted,
varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2)
SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3)
products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5)
products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S. or their
proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and
(8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel.
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS
under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.000, 7208.90.000,
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,
7211.90.000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050,
7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.90.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000,
7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to
this order is dispositive.
Application of Knowledge Test
Based on our examination of the questionnaire responses, we
preliminarily determine, in accordance with the Department's
established practice, that Palini knew or should have known that the
merchandise under review was for export to the United States at the
time of the sale.
Under section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the
Act) the basis for export price is the price at which the first party
in the chain of distribution who has knowledge of the U.S. destination
of the merchandise sells the subject merchandise, either directly to a
U.S. purchaser or to an intermediary such as a trading company. The
party making such a sale, with knowledge of the destination, is the
appropriate party to be reviewed. See Certain Pasta from Italy:
Termination of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62
FR 66602 (December 19, 1997) (Pasta from Italy). The Department's test
for determining knowledge is whether the relevant party knew or should
have known that the merchandise was destined for the United States. See
Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Trade Agreements
Act of 1979, H.R. Rep. No. 4537, 388, 411 reprinted in 1979
U.S.C.A.A.N. 665, 682. The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has
upheld the Department's use of the knowledge test.
Additionally, the CIT has affirmed that the Department is not
required to show that the producer had actual knowledge of the
destination of its exports. Wonderful Chemical Indus. v. United States,
259 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1279 (CIT 2003) (citing Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v.
United States, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1331-1332 (CIT 2000).
In determining whether a party knew or should have known that its
merchandise was destined for the United States, the Department's well-
established practice is to consider such factors as: (1) Whether that
party prepared or signed any certificates, shipping documents,
contracts or other papers stating that the destination of the
merchandise was the United States; (2) whether that party used any
packaging or labeling which stated that the merchandise was destined
for the United States; (3) whether any unique features or
specifications of the merchandise otherwise indicated that the
destination was the United States; and (4) whether that party admitted
to the Department that it knew that its sales were destined for the
United States. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios From Iran, 70 FR
7470 (February 14, 2005) and the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke the Order in
Part: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or
Above from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 69694 (December 14, 1999);
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Synthetic Indigo from the People's
Republic of China, 64 FR 69723 (December 14, 1999) (unchanged in final
determination) (upheld by CIT in Wonderful Chemical, 259 F. Supp. 2d at
1280) ; and Pasta from Italy, 62 FR 66602.
In this case, at the time of the sale, three of the four factors
noted above are present. Specifically, Palini stated that (1) its
unaffiliated customer informed Palini of the location of the port of
discharge prior to shipment; (2) Palini's commercial invoice identifies
the port of discharge; (3) Palini provided all of the shipping
information, including the port of discharge, to the unaffiliated
customer's shipping agent at the customer's request; and (4) Palini's
shipping marks, which are completed prior to shipment and are stenciled
onto each plate, include the port of discharge. Moreover, the documents
Palini provided for two shipments, directly from Italy, during the POR,
identify the port of discharge as one in the United States.
Therefore, pursuant to the Department's consistent practice and
based upon the explanations and documents provided in Palini's
supplemental questionnaire response, we preliminarily find that Palini
had knowledge of direct shipments to the United States of subject
merchandise. Because Palini had knowledge that its sales to its
Canadian customer were destined for the United States, Palini's sales
are properly subject to this review.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we
preliminarily find that the use of facts available as the basis for the
weighted-average dumping margin is appropriate for Palini, because
Palini withheld information specifically requested by the Department
and significantly impeded the proceeding.
The Department specifically requested in the May 11, 2005,
questionnaire that Palini report the quantity and value of subject
merchandise it sold and entered into the United States during the POR.
Palini failed to respond to the questionnaire. It was not until the
Department issued a letter to Palini in which we asked Palini to
indicate whether it had no shipments during the POR, that Palini
informed the Department that sales to the its Canadian customer may
have entered the United States, but that it had no knowledge of which
portion of these sales did, in fact, enter the United States. We note
that, at this time, Palini made no mentioned that it had shipped
[[Page 11181]]
sales to this customer directly to the United States.
As discussed above, the documentary evidence provided by Palini in
response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, demonstrates
that Palini had knowledge that merchandise it shipped from Italy
entered the United States during the POR. Even though these documents
were in Palini's possession, and kept in the normal course of business,
Palini failed to respond to the May 11, 2005, questionnaire and did not
report its sales and entries of subject merchandise made during the
POR. Palini only acknowledged its direct sales to the United States
after the Department informed Palini that CBP documents contradicted
its earlier assertions. Because it was unaware until late in the
proceeding that there, in fact, were entries subject to the review, the
Department was unable to issue additional questionnaires or calculate a
dumping margin for Palini's entries within the statutory time for
completing the review. The Department, therefore, finds that Palini has
withheld information that the Department specifically requested.
Additionally, by not responding to the initial questionnaire and
waiting to reveal its knowledge of direct shipments, Palini
significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, the Department has
determined that it must base Palini's dumping margin on the facts
otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the
Act.
In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference
if the Department finds that an interested party ``failed to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information.'' The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal
Circuit) has held that the statutory mandate that a respondent act to
the ``best of its ability'' requires the respondent to do the maximum
it is able to do. See, e.g., Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337
F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the instant case, Palini knew that
its shipments were destined for the United States. However, Palini
failed to report its entries of subject merchandise or even to respond
to the May 11, 2005, questionnaire at all. Palini did not do the
maximum it was able to do in response to the Department's requests for
information, but rather failed to report shipments it knew were subject
to the administrative review. Therefore, the Department finds that
Palini failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with
the Department's requests for information. Because Palini did not
cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department, in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available will use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of Palini. See section 776(b) of the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as
adverse facts available (AFA) information derived from (1) the
petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation under this
title, (3) any previous review under section 751 or determination under
section 753, or (4) any other information on the record. \. It is the
Department's practice normally to select the highest margin determined
in any segment of the proceeding for any respondent. See e.g., Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Partial Rescission: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania, 71 FR 7008 (February 10, 2006). The CIT and the Federal
Circuit have consistently upheld Commerce's practice. See Rhone
Poulenc, Inc. V. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
see also NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT
2004) (upholding a 73.55% total adverse facts available rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in an LTFV
investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States,
24 CIT 678, 689 (CIT 2000) (upholding a 51.16% total adverse facts
available rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different,
fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v.
United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01%
total adverse facts available rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative
review).
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994)
(SAA), see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69
FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); see also D&L Supply Co. v. United States,
113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate
balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the
respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced
current information showing the margin to be less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899
F. 2d at 1190. However, the Department's reliance on secondary
information to determine an adverse facts available rate is subject to
the corroboration requirement of section 776(c) of the Act.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is
described in the SAA as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The
SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information
used has probative value. The SAA also states that independent sources
used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From
Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005).
In this case, because there have been no administrative reviews
since the investigation, the only secondary information on the record
is Palini's calculated rate from the investigation and information from
the petition. The Department finds that it is inappropriate to use
Palini's calculated rate from the
[[Page 11182]]
investigation, 7.85 percent,\1\ because we presume if Palini could have
done better by cooperating in the proceeding it would have produced
current information showing the margin to be less. See Rhone Poulenc,
899 F. 2d at 1190. Therefore, to ensure that Palini does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully, the Department will not use its margin from the investigation.
See SAA, at 870. Therefore, the Department must rely on the only other
information available, the margins from the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Sec. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Cut-To-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From France, India,
Indonesia, Italy, Japan and the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 6585
(February 10, 2000) (CTL Plate Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the petition filed on February 16, 1999, the petitioners
calculated estimated dumping margins for the identified respondents,
including Palini, ranging from 30.75 to 93.30 percent. In this case, we
preliminarily determine that the petition margin of 30.75 percent is
sufficiently adverse to effectuate the purpose of the facts available
role. Therefore, we determine that the 30.75 percent margin is
appropriate as adverse facts available and are assigning it to Palini
as AFA.
Pursuant to 776(c) of the Act, we attempted to corroborate the
margin using the only information reasonably available to us. While we
did not have information available on the record to fully corroborate
the margin, the fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a
given case does not prevent the Department from applying an adverse
inference as appropriate, and does not prevent the Department from
using the secondary information. See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also Notice
of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from India, 68 FR 40629 (July 8,
2003). The petitioners calculated the AUV, which served as an estimate
of export price (EP), using import statistics obtained from the
International Trade Commission for the three HTSUS categories
accounting for the largest volume of subject imports from Italy during
the first eleven months of 1998. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From
the Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 64 FR
12959 (March 16, 1999) (CTL Plate from Italy Initiation Notice). The
petitioners calculated the cost of manufacturing (COM) using their own
production experience, adjusting for known differences between costs
incurred to produce CTL plate in the United States and in Italy. The
petitioners calculated selling, general, and administrative expenses;
financial expenses; and profit based upon the 1997 financial statements
of an Italian steel producer, consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the
Act. Id.
Therefore, given the record evidence from the petition and from the
instant review, we preliminarily find that the 30.75 percent rate is
the most appropriate to use as AFA and are assigning it to Palini.
Partial Preliminary Rescission of Administrative Review
The Department's practice, supported by substantial precedent,
requires that there be entries during the POR upon which to assess
antidumping duties, to conduct an administrative review. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an administrative review
in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer if
we conclude that during the period of review there were ``no entries,
exports, or sales of the subject merchandise.'' Ilva, Metalcam, and
Riva Fire reported that they had no entries of subject merchandise
during the POR. The Department confirmed, through CBP data, that there
were no entries of subject merchandise from these companies during the
POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are
preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to
Ilva, Metalcam, and Riva Fire.
Trametal has no entries during the POR against which to collect
duties. It is the Department's practice not to conduct an
administrative review when there are no entries to be reviewed. See
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Portable Electric Typewriters from Japan, 56 FR 14072, 14073 (April 5,
1991); and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Comments:
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 61 FR 7308, 7318 (February
27, 1996). Liquidation of entries is final on all parties unless
protested within the prescribed period. See 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514(a)(5).
Because the liquidation of Trametal's entry is final, the Department
cannot assess antidumping duties against that entry pursuant to the
final results of this administrative review. Therefore, the Department
will preliminarily rescind the review with respect to Trametal,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily find that the dumping
margin for Palini for the period February 1, 2004 through January 31,
2005, is 30.75 percent. For Ilva, Metalcam, Riva Fire, and Trametal, we
preliminarily rescind the administrative review.
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within
30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments
(rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of
authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the
public version of those comments. Issues raised in hearings will be
limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any interested
party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held approximately 37 days after the
publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter.
Unless the deadline for issuing the final results of review is
extended, the Department will issue the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of the
preliminary results in the Federal Register.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. Because we are applying AFA to all exports of subject
merchandise produced or exported by Palini, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate entries according to the AFA ad valorem rate for all
importers. The Department will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final
results of this review.
Cash Deposit Instructions
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of CTL Plate from Italy entered, or withdrawn from
[[Page 11183]]
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The
cash-deposit rate for Palini will be the rate established in the final
results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not covered by this review, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered by this review, a
prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer
is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (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 7.85 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV. See
Amended Final and Orders. These cash-deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402.(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 28, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3123 Filed 3-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S