30062 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–421–804]

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products From the Netherlands:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

the petitioners and respondent, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products from the

Netherlands. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period August 1, 1998 through July

31, 1999. The sole respondent did not

respond to our supplemental

questionnaire and subsequently

withdrew from this review. As a result,

we are basing our preliminary results on

adverse facts available. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

entries during the POR.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the

issue; and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Scott or Robert James,

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–2657 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA) of 1994. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

part 351 (1999).

Background

The Department of Commerce

published an antidumping duty order

on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products

from the Netherlands on August 19,

1993 (58 FR 44172). The Department

published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity To

Request Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1998–

1999 review period on August 11, 1999

(64 FR 43649). On August 31, 1999, both

the respondent, Hoogovens Staal BV

and Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc.

(Hoogovens), and petitioners

(Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel

Group (a Unit of USX Corporation),

Ispat Inland Inc., LTV Steel Company,

Inc. and National Steel Corporation)

filed requests for review. We published

a notice of initiation of the review on

October 1, 1999 (64 FR 53318).

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include cold-rolled (cold-reduced)

carbon steel flat-rolled products, of

rectangular shape, neither clad, plated

nor coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances,

in coils (whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

under item numbers 7209.15.0000,

7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060,

7209.16.0090, 7209.17.0030,

7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0090,

7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560,

7209.18.2550, 7209.18.6000,

7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000,

7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000,

7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,

7210.90.9000, 7211.23.1500,

7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000,

7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030,

7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6085,

7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090,

7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030,

7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,

7212.50.0000, 7215.50.0015,

7215.50.0060, 7215.50.0090,

7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000,

7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000,

7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000,

7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and

7217.90.5090. Included in this review

are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where

such 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. Excluded from this review is

certain shadow mask steel, i.e.,

aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil

that is open-coil annealed, has a carbon

content of less than 0.002 percent, is of

0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to

30 inches in width, and has an ultra flat,

isotropic surface. These HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes. The written

description of the scope of this order

remains dispositive.

Use of Facts Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act

provides that if an interested party or

any other person (A) withholds

information that has been requested by

the administering authority; (B) fails to

provide such information by the

deadlines for the submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)

and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly

impedes a proceeding under this title; or

(D) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified as

provided in section 782(i), the

administering authority shall, subject to

section 782(d), use the facts otherwise

available in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.

On October 5, 1999, the Department

issued its antidumping questionnaire to

Hoogovens. Hoogovens submitted its

response to sections A, B, C, and the

constructed value (CV) portion of

section D on November 19, 1999. On

December 9, 1999, petitioners alleged

that Hoogovens had made sales in the

home market at prices below its cost of

production (COP) and requested that the

Department commence a sales-belowcost investigation. Based on our review

of petitioners’ allegation, we determined

that there were reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that Hoogovens had

made sales of subject merchandise in

the Netherlands at prices below COP.

Thus, on December 22, 1999, the

Department announced that it would

initiate a sales-below-cost investigation

to determine whether Hoogovens’ sales

of cold-rolled carbon steel flat products

were made at prices below COP during

the POR. We subsequently issued a

letter requiring Hoogovens to submit

home market COP data by January 20,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices 30063

2000. Hoogovens timely responded to

this initial COP questionnaire.

On January 18, 2000 the Department

issued a supplemental questionnaire to

address significant deficiencies in

sections A, B, and C of Hoogovens’

original questionnaire. In our

supplemental questionnaire we

requested clarification on issues such as

the total value of home market sales and

the calculation of various home market

and U.S. movement and selling

expenses. Additionally, the Department

sought information concerning the sales

process in the U.S. in order to determine

whether Hoogovens’ U.S. sales should

be classified as export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) sales. We

requested that Hoogovens respond to

this supplemental questionnaire by

February 1, 2000. In response to

Hoogovens’ requests on January 28,

2000 and February 8, 2000 to extend

this deadline, the Department first

granted an extension until February 15,

2000 and then a further extension until

February 22, 2000. On February 17,

2000, Hoogovens submitted another

request that the deadline for its response

be postponed. The Department declined

this third request for an extension.

Hoogovens did not submit a response

to the Department’s supplemental

questionnaire. In a March 3, 2000

submission Hoogovens declared that it

was withdrawing from this review

because the recent merger between

Hoogovens and British Steel to form the

Corus Group rendered Hoogovens

‘‘unable at this time to devote the

necessary resources to the Department’s

review.’’

Absent the supplemental information

requested by the Department, we find

that Hoogovens’ original questionnaire

response is unusable for purposes of our

analysis. Pursuant to section 782(e) of

the Tariff Act, the Department must

consider information submitted by an

interested party if all of the following

criteria are met: (1) The information is

submitted by the deadline established

for its submission; (2) the information

can be verified; (3) the information is

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as

a reliable basis for reaching the

applicable determination; (4) the

interested party has demonstrated that it

acted to the best of its ability in

providing the information and meeting

the requirements established by the

administering authority with respect to

the information; and (5) the information

can be used without undue difficulties.

Hoogovens withdrew from this review

without ever responding to the

Department’s supplemental

questionnaire. In failing to provide

clarification on significant issues in this

case, we have determined that

Hoogovens did not act to the best of its

ability. Without the additional

information and clarification we

requested on Hoogovens’ home market

sales value, U.S. sales process, and

home market and U.S. expense

calculations, the Department cannot

determine whether the complete

universe of home market sales was

reported, whether Hoogovens Stahl

USA’s (HSUSA’s) sales should be

classified as EP or CEP, or whether

Hoogovens has reported certain of its

home market and U.S. expenses

appropriately. Therefore, the

information provided in the original

questionnaire response does not serve as

a reliable basis upon which to calculate

a dumping margin for Hoogovens.

Further, because of Hoogovens’

withdrawal from this proceeding, the

Department could not verify, as

provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff

Act, any of the information that

Hoogovens placed on the record prior to

its withdrawal.

Since Hoogovens failed to meet the

requirements set forth in section 782(e)

of the Tariff Act, we have determined

that the information submitted by

Hoogovens in this review cannot be

used to make a determination in this

case. Therefore, we determine that the

use of facts available is warranted

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C)

of the Tariff Act because Hoogovens

failed to provide information requested

by the Department and significantly

impeded this proceeding.

In addition, section 776(b) of the

Tariff Act provides 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,’’ the

Department may use information that is

adverse to the interests of the party as

facts otherwise available. 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.’’ See

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R.

Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at

870 (1994).

The Department finds that in not

responding to the supplemental

questionnaire, Hoogovens failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for

information. Therefore, pursuant to

section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we may,

in making our determination, use an

adverse inference in selecting from the

facts otherwise available. This adverse

inference may include reliance on data

derived from the petition, a previous

determination in an investigation or

review, or any other information placed

on the record. For this review we have

assigned a margin of 19.32 percent as

the facts available rate to Hoogovens.

This rate represents the highest rate for

any respondent in any prior segment of

this proceeding, which happens to be a

prior rate calculated for Hoogovens

itself, as corrected pursuant to litigation.

See Amended Final Determination

Pursuant to CIT Decision: Certain ColdRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From

the Netherlands, 61 FR 47871

(September 11, 1996).

Information from prior segments of

the proceeding constitutes secondary

information, and section 776(c) of the

Tariff Act provides that the Department

shall, to the extent practicable,

corroborate secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its

disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides

that ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that

the Department will satisfy itself that

the secondary information to be used

has probative value (see the SAA at 870.

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information to be used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as adverse facts available a

calculated dumping margin from a prior

segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin inappropriate. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse

facts available, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,

1996) (where the Department

disregarded the highest margin as

adverse facts available because the

margin was based on another company’s

uncharacteristic business expense

resulting in an unusually high margin)).

As discussed above, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of a

calculated margin from a prior segment

of the proceeding. Further, there are no

circumstances indicating that this

margin is inappropriate as facts

30064 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices

available. Again, this margin represents

a calculated rate for Hoogovens, using

its own data and as corrected pursuant

to litigation. Therefore, we preliminarily

find that the 19.32 percent rate is

corroborated.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that a

weighted-average dumping margin of

19.32 percent exists for Hoogovens for

the period August 1, 1998 through July

31, 1999.

Interested parties may submit written

comments (case briefs) no later than 30

days after the date of publication of

these preliminary results. Rebuttal

comments (rebuttal briefs), which must

be limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Parties who submit case briefs or

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument, not to

exceed five pages in length. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication. Requests

for a hearing should specify the number

of participants and identify the issues to

be discussed. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held two days after the

submission of rebuttal briefs, if any, or

the first working day thereafter. See 19

CFR 351.310(c) and (d). The Department

will publish a notice of the final results

of the administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised by the parties, within 120

days of publication of these preliminary

results. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Cash Deposit

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Upon completion of this review

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following cash

deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the final results of

this administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for Hoogovens

will be the rate established in the final

results of this administrative review; (2)

for exporters not covered in this review,

but covered in previous reviews or the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, previous reviews, or the

original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will be 19.32 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the

original fair value investigation (61 FR

47871).

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) 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 in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: Dated: May 2, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11597 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–703]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

From Italy; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

respondent, Ausimont S.p.A.

(Ausimont), the Department of

Commerce is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin

from Italy. The period of review is

August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999.

We preliminarily find that sales have

not been made below normal value

(NV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the Customs Service to assess no

antidumping duties on the subject

merchandise exported by Ausimont. We

invite interested parties to comment on

these preliminary results. Parties who

submit comments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4162 or (202) 482–

0650, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations provided in 19 CFR Part

351 (1999).

Background

On August 30, 1988, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on granular

PTFE resin from Italy (53 FR 33163). On

August 27, 1999, we received a timely

request for review from Ausimont and

its U.S. affiliated company, Ausimont

USA, the only respondent in this

administrative review. On November 4,

1999, the Department published in the

Federal Register a list of antidumping

and countervailing duty cases with

September anniversary dates for which

we were initiating reviews. See

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Request for Revocation in

Part, 64 FR 60161. This initiation notice

also included the initiation of this

review of the antidumping duty order

on granular PTFE resin from Italy

because we inadvertently omitted this

review from the previous initiation

notice for antidumping cases with

August anniversary dates.

We issued a questionnaire to

Ausimont on October 8, 1999, followed

by a supplemental questionnaire on

February 8, 2000, and received