On August 5, the US Department of Commerce (DOC) issued the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan with respect to three companies. Only one respondent, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far), has participated in this review, while the remaining two companies reported that they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008.
On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan. On July 11, 2008, the DOC published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. On July 31, 2008, the petitioners submitted a timely request for the DOC to conduct an administrative review of the sales of stainless steel sheet made during the period of review by 20 companies.
In August 2008, the DOC published a notice of initiation of administrative review covering each of these 20 companies. In September 2008, the DOC released relevant US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data to interested parties, and it received comments on the issue of respondent selection from the petitioners. Also in that month, it received a statement from Ta Chen indicating that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the US during the period of review. On September 25, 2008, the petitioners withdrew their request for administrative review with respect to 17 companies. Therefore, since the request for administrative review with respect to the companies listed above was withdrawn in timely manner, the DOC rescinded this review with regard to those companies.
In October 2008, the DOC issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to two remaining respondents, Chia Far and YUSCO, and it issued a letter to Ta Chen requesting additional information regarding its no-shipment statement. Ta Chen responded to its request in the same month by providing the requested information, certifying to the DOC that it had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the US during the period of review. Also in October 2008, YUSCO provided a statement indicating that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the US during the period of review. The DOC subsequently confirmed with the CBP the no-shipment claim made by Ta Chen and YUSCO. Because the evidence on the record indicates that YUSCO did not export subject merchandise to the US during the period of review, the DOC has preliminarily determined that it is appropriate to rescind the review for YUSCO.
Subsequent to Ta Chen's October response, the petitioners alleged that Ta Chen was engaged in middleman dumping of merchandise produced by Tung Mung Development Co. (Tung Mung), a Taiwanese producer of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils which is excluded from the order. In November 2008, Ta Chen denied the petitioners' allegations, stating that Ta Chen International (TCI), a US affiliate of Ta Chen, purchased and imported the subject merchandise directly from Tung Mung and consequently that Ta Chen did not act as a middleman in these transactions. In June and July 2009, the petitioners submitted additional comments requesting that the DOC treat Ta Chen as a middleman for sales between Tung Mung and TCI. After considering the petitioners' allegation and their additional comments, as well as the information submitted by Ta Chen, the DOC has preliminarily found that Ta Chen did not act as a middleman because there is no evidence on the record demonstrating that Ta Chen was involved in the export transactions at issue. Thus, the DOC has found no basis to treat TCI as a middleman, solely by virtue of its affiliation with Ta Chen. Accordingly, the DOC has preliminarily decided that it is appropriate to rescind the review for Ta Chen.
In the 2006-2007 administrative review, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, the DOC found Chia Far and Lucky Medsup Inc. (Lucky Medsup), one of Chia Far's US reseller customers, to be affiliated under the act which states that, for purposes of affiliation, "a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over that person." The affiliation determination in the 2006-2007 administrative review is consistent with the DOC's findings in prior administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise from Taiwan. In the present review, Lucky Medsup continues to act as a "go-through" without maintaining inventory, and Chia Far supplied all of the subject merchandise sold by Lucky Medsup during the period of review. Further, since Chia Far has submitted no evidence on the record to demonstrate that Chia Far is less involved in the transactions between Lucky Medsup and its customers as found in prior reviews, the DOC has decided to continue to find for purposes of these preliminary results that Chia Far is affiliated with Lucky Medsup because Chia Far is in a position to exercise restraint or direction over Lucky Medsup and has the potential to have an impact on Lucky Medsup's decisions regarding sales and pricing.
Therefore, the DOC has preliminarily determined a 4.3 percent weighted-average dumping margin for the respondent Chia Far for the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. If the preliminary results are adopted in the DOC's final results of this administrative review, the DOC will instruct US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results.
In addition, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review: The cash deposit rate for Chia Far will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis, in which case no cash deposit will be required; while the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.61 percent, the all others rate made effective by the less-than-fair value investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.