Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41437

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16946 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–841]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Structural

Steel Beams From South Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) determines that

structural steel beams from South Korea

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes to our analysis. Therefore, this

final determination differs from the

preliminary determination. The final

weighted-average dumping margins are

listed below in the section entitled

‘‘Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita (Kangwon), Brandon

Farlander (Inchon) or Rick Johnson,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4243, (202) 482–

0182, or 482–3818, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930

(‘‘the Act’’) as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR Part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On February 11, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 6984) the Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Structural Steel Beams

from South Korea (‘‘Preliminary

Determination’’). We invited parties to

comment on our preliminary

determination. We verified Inchon’s

sales and cost questionnaire responses

from March 6–18, 2000. We verified

Kangwon’s sales and cost questionnaire

responses from March 6–10, 2000, and

March 13–17, 2000, respectively. We

verified Hyundai U.S.A., the U.S.

affiliate of Inchon, on April 12–13,

2000. On May 4, 2000, we solicited

further information from Inchon

regarding the merger between Inchon

and Kangwon. On May 17, 2000, we

received case briefs from interested

parties, and on May 22, 2000, we

received rebuttal briefs. On June 1 and

2, 2000, we verified Inchon’s

information concerning the merger. On

June 6, we issued our successorship

verification report. On June 9, 2000, we

received case briefs on successorship

from Inchon and petitioners and, on

June 14, 2000, we received rebuttal

briefs on successorship from Inchon and

petitioners. At the request of petitioners,

we held a public hearing on June 16,

2000.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are doubly-symmetric

shapes, whether hot- or cold-rolled,

drawn, extruded, formed or finished,

having at least one dimension of at least

80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of

carbon or alloy (other than stainless)

steel, and whether or not drilled,

punched, notched, painted, coated or

clad. These products include, but are

not limited to, wide-flange beams (‘‘W’’

shapes), bearing piles (‘‘HP’’ shapes),

standard beams (‘‘S’’ or ‘‘I’’ shapes), and

M-shapes.

All products that meet the physical

and metallurgical descriptions provided

above are within the scope of this

investigation unless otherwise

excluded. The following products, are

outside and/or specifically excluded

from the scope of this investigation:

structural steel beams greater than 400

pounds per linear foot or with a web or

section height (also known as depth)

over 40 inches.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheadings: 7216.32.0000,

7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060,

7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000,

7216.61,0000, 7216.69.0000,

7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000,

7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and Customs purposes,

the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Use of Facts Available

For a discussion of our application of

facts available, see the ‘‘Facts Available’’

section of the Issues and Decision

Memorandum for the Investigation of

Structural Steel Beams from South

Korea from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration (‘‘Decision Memo’’),

dated June 26, 2000, which is on file in

the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of

the main Department building, and on

the Web at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of beams

from South Korea to the United States

were made at less than fair value, we

compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) and

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to

comparison market prices or CV, as

described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’

‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below. Our

calculations followed the methodologies

described in the Preliminary

Determination, except as noted below

and in the company-specific calculation

memoranda dated June 26, 2000, which

have been placed in the file in Room B–

099. For detailed discussions relating to

the issues described below, see Decision

Memo.

Export Price

For Kangwon’s sales to all U.S.

customers, and Inchon’s direct sales and

sales through Hyundai Corporation

(Channels 2 and 3) to U.S. customers,

we used EP as defined in section 772 of

the Act. We calculated EP based on the

same methodology described in the

Preliminary Determination, with the

following exceptions:

Inchon

a. Based on verification findings, we

deducted bank charges and negotiation

fees as a direct selling expense for all

U.S. sales. See Decision Memo,

Comment 31.

b. We disregarded all of Inchon’s U.S.

Channel 3 sales to a particular customer.

See Decision Memo, Comment 11.

c. We applied additional expenses for

all Inchon’s U.S. sales to account for

various additional movement fees,

excluding U.S. marine insurance,

incurred on certain U.S. sales. See

Decision Memo, Comment 13.

d. We adjusted Hyundai Corporation’s

indirect selling expenses for U.S. sales.

See Decision Memo, Comment 14.

e. We adjusted Inchon’s reported

packing expenses for all U.S. sales. See

Decision Memo, Comment 19.

41438 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices

f. Based on verification findings with

regard to U.S. marine insurance,

because record evidence indicates that

Inchon’s expenses reported from

affiliates were slightly lower, in terms of

the dollar amount per metric ton, than

from non-affiliates, we have applied, as

facts available, the percentage difference

between these two to reported U.S.

marine insurance expenses for all U.S.

sales. See Final Analysis Memo: Inchon.

Kangwon

a. Based on verification findings, we

deducted bank charges/fees as a direct

selling expense for all U.S. sales. See

Decision Memo, Comment 31.

Constructed Export Price

As discussed in Comment 28 of the

Decision Memo, we now determine that

Inchon’s sales through Hyundai U.S.A.

are CEP sales. For Inchon’s sales to U.S.

customers via Hyundai U.S.A. (Channel

1), we used CEP as defined section 772

of the Act. We calculated CEP, in

accordance with subsections 772(b), (c),

and (d) of the Act, for those sales to the

first unaffiliated purchaser that took

place after importation into the United

States. We based CEP on the packed,

delivered, duty paid or delivered prices

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these

included, where appropriate, foreign

inland freight from the plant to the port

of export, foreign wharfage,

international freight, marine insurance,

U.S. warehousing expenses, U.S.

loading expenses, U.S. custom duty,

U.S. wharfage expenses and U.S.

brokerage expenses. In accordance with

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we

deducted those selling expenses

associated with economic activities

occurring in the United States,

including direct selling expenses

(imputed credit expenses) and indirect

selling expenses. For CEP sales, we also

made an adjustment for profit in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act. Additionally, we added to the U.S.

price an amount for duty drawback

pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the

Act. For a further discussion of this

issue, see Final Analysis Memo: Inchon.

Additionally, we made the following

adjustments:

a. We applied additional expenses for

all of Inchon’s U.S. sales to account for

various additional movement fees,

excluding U.S. marine insurance,

incurred on certain U.S. sales. See

Decision Memo, Comment 13.

b. Based on verification findings, we

deducted bank charges and negotiation

fees as a direct selling expense for all

U.S. sales. See Decision Memo,

Comment 31.

c. We adjusted Hyundai Corporation’s

indirect selling expenses for U.S. sales.

See Decision Memo, Comment 14.

d. We adjusted Inchon’s reported

packing expenses for all U.S. sales. See

Decision Memo, Comment 19.

e. Based on our verification findings

from the Hyundai U.S.A. verification,

we are deducting U.S. brokerage

expenses on a per invoice basis. See

Final Analysis Memo: Inchon.

f. We deducted other discounts

(which Inchon reported in its December

10, 1999, supplemental questionnaire

response), where applicable, from the

U.S. prices. See Final Analysis Memo:

Inchon.

g. Based on verification findings with

regard to U.S. marine insurance,

because record evidence indicates that

Inchon’s expenses reported from

affiliates were slightly lower, in terms of

the dollar amount per metric ton, than

from non-affiliates, we have applied, as

facts available, the percentage difference

between these two to reported U.S.

marine insurance expenses for all U.S.

sales. See Final Analysis Memo: Inchon.

Normal Value

We used the same methodology to

calculate NV as that described in the

Preliminary Determination, with the

following exceptions:

1. Cost of Production Analysis

Inchon

a. We increased Inchon’s direct

materials costs to account for materials

supplied by affiliated parties. See

Decision Memo, Comment 1.

b. We revised Inchon’s reported

depreciation expenses to account for

machinery and equipment supplied by

affiliated parties. See Decision Memo,

Comment 3.

c. We revised Inchon’s reported

repairs and maintenance expenses to

account for services supplied by

affiliated parties. See Decision Memo,

Comment 4.

d. We revised Inchon’s reported R&D

expenses. See Decision Memo,

Comment 6.

e. We revised Inchon’s reported

interest expenses. See Decision Memo,

Comment 9.

Kangwon

a. We adjusted Kangwon’s interest

expense to account for the disallowance

of the gain on debt restructure. See

Decision Memo, Comment 26.

b. We recalculated the foreign

exchange gains and losses included in

the interest expense calculation by

using Kangwon’s historical method of

amortizing these amounts over the life

of the related debt.

c. We adjusted Kangwon’s G&A

expense rate computation for various

miscellaneous income and expense

items. See Decision Memo, Comment

27.

2. Calculation of NV Based on

Comparison Market Prices

We performed price-to-price

comparisons where there were sales of

comparable merchandise in the

comparison market that did not fail the

cost test using the same methodology

described in the Preliminary

Determination, with the following

exception: For Inchon, we revised the

customer relationship for one customer

to indicate its affiliation with Inchon.

See Decision Memo, Comment 15.

3. Calculation of NV Based on

Constructed Value

We calculated CV in the same way as

in the Preliminary Determination with

the same exceptions noted above for

COP.

Level of Trade

We have made the same level of trade

determinations described in the

Preliminary Determination.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the Act

in the same manner as in the

Preliminary Determination.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the

act, we verified the information

submitted by the respondents for use in

our final determination. We used

standard verification procedures,

including examination of relevant

accounting and production records, as

well as original source documents

provided by the respondents.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

investigation are addressed in the

Decision Memo dated June 26, 2000,

which is hereby adopted. A list of the

issues which parties have raised and to

which we have responded, all of which

are in the Decision Memo, is attached to

this notice as an appendix. Parties can

find a complete discussion of all issues

raised in this investigation and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public memorandum which is on file in

Room B–099. In addition, a complete

version of the Decision Memo can be

accessed directly on the Web at

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41439

www.ita.doc.gov/import–admin/

records/frn/. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision Memo

are identical in content.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section

735(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we are directing

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’)

to suspend liquidation of all imports of

the subject merchandise from South

Korea that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register. Customs

shall require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the EP and CEP as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice.

Article VI.5 of the General Agreement

on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994)

provides that ‘‘[n]o product * * *

shall be subject to both antidumping

and countervailing duties to compensate

for the same situation of dumping or

export subsidization.’’ This provision is

implemented in section 772(c)(1)(C) of

the Tariff Act. Since antidumping duties

cannot be assessed on the portion of the

margin attributed to export subsidies

there is no reason to require a cash

deposit or bond for that amount. The

Department has determined in its

concurrent countervailing duty

investigation for structural steel beams

from Korea that the product under

investigation benefitted from export

subsidies. Normally, where the product

under investigation is also subject to a

concurrent countervailing duty

investigation, we instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the EP, as indicated below,

minus the amount determined to

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g.

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 63

FR 49327 (September 15, 1998).

Accordingly, for cash deposit purposes

we are subtracting from Kangwon’s cash

deposit rate that portion of the rate

attributable to the export subsidies

found in the countervailing duty

investigation involving Kangwon(i.e.,

0.09 percent). We have made the same

adjustment to the ‘‘All Others’’ cash

deposit rate by subtracting the rate

attributable to export subsidies found in

the countervailing duty investigation of

Kangwon.

We will instruct the Customs Service

to require a cash deposit or the posting

of a bond for each entry equal to the

weighted-average amount by which the

NV exceeds the EP or CEP, adjusting for

the export subsidy rate, as indicated

below. These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

[In percent]

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

Bonding/

cash deposit rate

Inchon ............... 25.51 25.51

Kangwon ........... 49.73 49.64

All others ........... 37.72 37.67

The rate for all other producers and

exporters applies to all entries of the

subject merchandise except for entries

from exporters that are identified

individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

of our determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will, within 45 days, determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that

material injury, or threat of material

injury, does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 26, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

APPENDIX

List of Comments and Issues in the

Decision Memo

I. Issues Specific to Inchon Iron & Steel

Co., Ltd.

A. Cost of Production/Constructed

Value Issues

Comment 1: Applicant of Major Input

Rule

Comment 2: Application of Major

Input Rule to Other Affiliated-Party

Transactions

Comment 3: Description

Comment 4: Overhead

Comment 5: SG&A Expenses

Comment 6: R&D Expenses

Comment 7: Interest Expense

(Securities)

Comment 8: Interest Expense (SalesRelated Activities)

Comment 9: Loan Guarantees

Comment 10: Affiliated-Party Services

for an Input

B. Sales and General Issues

Comment 11: Sales Price and

Adjustments for U.S. Channel 3

Comment 12: Billing Adjustments for

U.S. Channel 2 sales

Comment 13: U.S. Movement

Expenses

Comment 14: Recalculation of Home

Market and U.S. Indirect Selling

Expenses

Comment 15: Home Market Sales to

an Affiliated Customer

Comment 16: Fees to a Home Market

Customer

Comment 17: Home Market Inland

Freight

Comment 18: Application of Total

Adverse Facts Available

Comment 19: Packing Expenses for

U.S. Sales

Comment 20: Clarification of Home

Market and U.S. Verification

Reports

II. Issues Specific to Kangwon Industries

Ltd.

A. Sales and General Issues

Comment 21: Commissions

Comment 22: Duty Drawback

Comment 23: Home Market Freight

Comment 24: Corrections to

Kangwon’s Response

Comment 25: Over- and UnderReporting of Home Market Sales

B. Cost of Production/Constructed Value

Issues

Comment 26: Gain on Exemption of

Debt

Comment 27: G&A Expenses

III. Issues Applicable to Both

Respondents

Comment 28: EP vs. CEP Sales

Comment 29: Cash Deposit Rate/

Successorship

Comment 30: Home Market Sales of

ASTM-Grade Merchandise

Comment 31: Banking Negotiation

Fees

[FR Doc. 00–16952 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–821–802]

Uranium From Russia; Final Results of

Full Sunset Review of Suspended

Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of full

sunset review: Uranium from Russia.