45224 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

In this case, we received no requests

for review for five consecutive review

periods. Furthermore, no domestic

interested party, as defined under

§ 353.2(k)(3), (k)(4), (k)(5), or (k)(6) of

the Department’s regulations, has

expressed opposition to revocation.

Based on these facts, we have concluded

that the antidumping duty order on

aspheric ophthalmoscopy lenses from

Japan is no longer of any interest to

interested parties. Accordingly, we are

revoking this antidumping duty order in

accordance with 19 CFR

§ 353.25(d)(4)(iii).

Scope of the Order

Imports covered by the revocation are

shipments of aspheric ophthalmoscopy

lenses from Japan. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under Harmonized

Tariff Schedules (HTS) item number

9018.50.00. The HTS number is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

This revocation applies to all

unliquidated entries of aspheric

ophthalmoscopy lenses from Japan

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after April 1,

1997. Entries made during the period

April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997,

will be subject to automatic assessment

in accordance with 19 CFR § 353.22(e).

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to proceed with

liquidation of all unliquidated entries of

this merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after April 1, 1997, without regard to

antidumping duties, and to refund any

estimated antidumping duties collected

with respect to those entries. This notice

is in accordance with 19 CFR

§ 353.25(d).

Dated: August 18, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/

CVD Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–22686 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–824, A–475–820, A–588–843, A–580–

829, A–469–807, A–401–806, and A–583–

828]

Initiation of Antidumping

Investigations: Stainless Steel Wire

Rod From Germany, Italy, Japan,

Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Maeder, at (202) 482–3330; James

Terpstra, at (202) 482–3965; or Erik

Warga, at (202) 482–0922, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations, as amended by

the regulations published in the Federal

Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

The Petition

On July 30, 1997, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received

a petition filed in proper form by AL

Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Republic Engineered

Steels, Talley Metals Technology, Inc.,

and United Steelworkers of America

(‘‘petitioners’’). The Department

received supplemental information to

the petition on August 6 and 14, 1997.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, petitioners allege that imports

of stainless steel wire rod from

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

Sweden, and Taiwan are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value within the meaning

of section 731 of the Act, and that such

imports are materially injuring an

industry in the United States.

The Department finds that petitioners

have standing to file the petition

because they are interested parties as

defined in section 771(9)(C) and (D) of

the Act and they have demonstrated

sufficient industry support (see

discussion below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

certain stainless steel wire rod

(‘‘SSWR’’) comprises products that are

hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or

pickled and/or descaled rounds,

squares, octagons, hexagons or other

shapes, in coils, that may also be coated

with a lubricant containing copper, lime

or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more

of chromium, with or without other

elements. These products are

manufactured only by hot-rolling or hotrolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/

or descaling, and are normally sold in

coiled form, and are of solid crosssection. The majority of SSWR sold in

the United States is round in crosssectional shape, annealed and pickled,

and later cold-finished into stainless

steel wire or small-diameter bar.

The most common size for such

products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217

inches in diameter, which represents

the smallest size that normally is

produced on a rolling mill and is the

size that most wire drawing machines

are set up to draw. The range of SSWR

sizes normally sold in the United States

is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches

diameter. Two stainless steel grades

SF20T and K–M35FL are excluded from

the scope of the investigation. The

chemical makeup for the excluded

grades are as follows:

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices 45225

1See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

Phosphorous ................................. 0.04 max ....................................... Aluminum ...................................... 0.20/0.35.

Sulfur ............................................. 0.03 max.

The products under investigation are

currently classifiable under subheadings

7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015,

7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and

7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

scope of these investigations is

dispositive.

As we discussed in the preamble to

the new regulations (62 FR at 27323),

we are setting aside a period for

interested parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all interested

parties to submit such comments by

September 15, 1997. Comments should

be addressed to Import Administration’s

Central Records Unit at Room 1874, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania

Avenue and 14th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. This period of

scope consultation is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determination.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who account for

production of the domestic like product.

The International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for

determining whether ‘‘the domestic

industry’’ has been injured, must also

determine what constitutes a domestic

like product in order to define the

industry. While both the Department

and the ITC must apply the same

statutory provision regarding the

domestic like product (section 771(10)

of the Act), they do so for different

purposes and pursuant to separate and

distinct authority. In addition, the

Department’s determination is subject to

limitations of time and information.

Although this may result in different

definitions of the domestic like product,

such differences do not render the

decision of either agency contrary to the

law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the

reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

The petition refers to the single

domestic like product defined in the

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, above.

The Department has no basis on the

record to find the petition’s definition of

the domestic like product to be

inaccurate. In this regard, we have

found no basis on which to reject

petitioners’ representations that there

are clear dividing lines, in terms of

characteristics and uses, between the

product under investigation and other

coiled steel products. The Department

has, therefore, adopted the domestic like

product definition set forth in the

petition. In this case, petitioners

established industry support

substantially above the statutory

requirement. Accordingly, the

Department determines that the petition

is filed on behalf of the domestic

industry within the meaning of section

732(b)(1) of the Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

The following are descriptions of the

allegations of sales at less than fair value

upon which our decisions to initiate

these investigations are based. Should

the need arise to use any of this

information in our preliminary or final

determinations for purposes of facts

available under section 776 of the Act,

we may re-examine the information and

revise the margin calculations, if

appropriate.

Germany

Petitioners identified Krupp

Edelstahlprofile (‘‘Krupp’’) as the sole

exporter and producer of SSWR from

Germany. Petitioners based export price

on recent U.S. sales by Krupp during

June 1997 for the SSWR grades most

commonly exported to the United States

from Germany. Petitioners calculated

net U.S. prices by subtracting an

estimate of the costs incurred to

transport the SSWR rod from the factory

to the U.S. port. Petitioners did not

subtract costs incurred to transport the

SSWR from the U.S. port to the

customer’s location in the United States.

Petitioners calculated the cost of

international freight based upon the

average difference in the CIF values and

the U.S. Customs values reported in the

official U.S. import statistics. Petitioners

subtracted amounts for U.S. import

duties based on the 1997 import duty

rate. Petitioners also subtracted amounts

for the U.S. harbor maintenance fee and

for the U.S. merchandise processing fee.

With respect to normal value (‘‘NV’’),

petitioners obtained prices for recent

sales of SSWR by Krupp to customers in

Germany from foreign market research.

Petitioners calculated net home market

prices for sales made in Germany by

subtracting an amount for delivery costs

as obtained through foreign market

research from the reported gross home

market sales prices.

In addition, the petitioners provided

information demonstrating reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of SSWR in the home market were made

at prices below the fully allocated cost

of production (‘‘COP’’), within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act,

and requested that the Department

conduct a country-wide sales below cost

investigation.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the

Act, COP consists of the cost of

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’), selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(‘‘SG&A’’), and packing. To calculate

COP, petitioners based COM, with the

exception of depreciation, on their own

production experience, adjusted for

known differences between costs

incurred to produce SSWR in the

United States and costs incurred for

producing the merchandise in Germany.
45226 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

To calculate depreciation, petitioners

relied upon Krupp’s 1996 consolidated

financial statements. To derive the

direct materials, energy, direct labor and

factory overhead costs, petitioners

obtained cost data from two U.S.

producers and relied upon the average

costs of those producers. One of the U.S.

producers manufactures its own billets

while the other purchases all billets

consumed. The foreign market research

obtained by the petitioner indicated that

Krupp produces its own billets.

Therefore, we recalculated the

submitted COM based on the cost data

of the U.S. company that produces its

own billets.

To calculate SG&A, petitioners relied

upon expense rates of nineteen German

companies, only one of which appears

to be involved in the metal

manufacturing industry. We

recalculated SG&A using the reported

rate for the company that appears to be

in an industry similar to that which

manufactures steel products. Petitioners

calculated financing expenses using

Krupp’s 1996 consolidated audited

financial statements. Petitioners added

the average packing costs reported by

the U.S. producers to COP. Based upon

the comparison of the adjusted prices of

the foreign like product in the home

market to the calculated COP, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

were made below the COP within the

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act (see Initiation Checklist, dated

August 19, 1997). Accordingly, with

respect to the German case, the

Department is initiating a county-wide

cost investigation.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Act, petitioners also

based NV for sales in Germany on

constructed value (‘‘CV’’). For purposes

of this initiation, we accepted CV as the

appropriate basis for NV. Petitioners

calculated CV using the same COM,

SG&A, and interest expense figures used

to compute German home market costs.

We adjusted the CV as noted above in

the discussion of COP. Consistent with

section 773(e)(2) of the Act, petitioners

also added to CV an amount for profit.

Profit was based upon Krupp’s 1996

consolidated audited financial

statements.

The revised average dumping margins

in the petition, based on the

comparisons between Krupp’s U.S.

prices and the revised constructed

values, range from 17.17 percent to

21.28 percent.

Italy

Petitioners identified four exporters

and producers of SSWR: Cogne Acciai

Speciali SrL (‘‘Cogne’’); Rodacciai;

Acciaierie Valbruna SrL (‘‘Valbruna’’);

and Acciaierie di Bolzano (‘‘Bolzano’’).

Petitioners based export price on actual

U.S. sales by Cogne and by Valbruna/

Bolzano during November 1996 for the

SSWR grades most commonly exported

to the United States from Italy.

Petitioners calculated net U.S. prices by

subtracting an estimate of the costs

incurred to transport the stainless wire

rod from the factory to the customer’s

location in the United States.

Petitioners calculated the cost of

international freight based upon the

average difference in the CIF values and

the U.S. Customs values reported in the

official U.S. import statistics. Petitioners

estimated U.S. inland freight costs based

on the distance from the U.S. port of

entry to the U.S. customer’s location.

Petitioners subtracted amounts for U.S.

import duties and customs user fees.

Petitioners also subtracted amounts for

the U.S. harbor maintenance fee and for

the U.S. merchandise processing fee.

Petitioners added duty drawback to the

U.S. prices for comparisons that

involved grades of SSWR that include

molybdenum or titanium based on

information obtained from foreign

market research.

With respect to NV, petitioners

obtained home market prices through

foreign market research. Petitioners

calculated net home market prices for

sales in Italy by subtracting the

estimated delivery costs reported in the

foreign market research. Petitioners

converted home market prices quoted in

lire per kilogram to U.S. dollars per

pound by using a conversion ratio of

one kilogram equals 2.2046 pounds and

the Italian lire/U.S. dollar exchange rate

in effect during the period in which the

U.S. sales occurred. The exchange rates

used to make currency conversions were

the rates published in the International

Financial Statistics for November 1996,

the month of the U.S. sales.

Petitioners made a circumstance of

sale adjustment for imputed credit

expenses by subtracting home market

credit expenses and by adding U.S.

imputed credit expenses to the net

home market prices calculated in the

petition. Petitioners calculated home

market imputed credit expenses based

on the average payment period, reported

in the foreign market research, of 90

days, and the average lending rate in

Italy published by the International

Financial Statistics for the fourth

quarter of 1996. Petitioners calculated

U.S. imputed credit expenses based on

payment terms reported in the foreign

market research of 60 days and the

average lending rate in the United States

published in the International Financial

Statistics. Petitioners did not adjust the

reported prices for differences in

packing costs because petitioners

assumed that packing costs were the

same for home market sales and for U.S.

sales.

According to the foreign market

research, Italian producers impose a

surcharge per kilogram for wire rod with

a diameter of 6 millimeters to 13

millimeters. Petitioners subtracted this

amount from NV as a difference-inmerchandise adjustment when the price

comparisons involved a U.S. sale of

wire rod with a diameter of less than 6

millimeters and wire rod sold in Italy

with a diameter between 6 millimeters

and 13 millimeters.

Comparison of NV and net U.S. prices

for sales of SSWR from Italy results in

estimated dumping margins that range

from 33.29 percent to 46.79 percent.

Japan

Petitioners identified four exporters

and producers of SSWR: Aichi Steel

Works Ltd.; Daido Steel Co. Ltd.

(‘‘Daido’’); Nippon Steel Corp.

(‘‘Nippon’’); and Sumitomo Metal

Industries Ltd. Petitioners based export

prices on actual, port-of-export, prices

for U.S. sales made by Nippon and

Daido to unaffiliated Japanese trading

companies during the fourth quarter of

1996 for the SSWR grades most

commonly exported to the United States

from Japan. Petitioners calculated net

U.S. prices by subtracting amounts to

deliver the subject merchandise from

the factory to the port of export. This

information was obtained from foreign

market research.

Petitioners did not calculate imputed

credit expenses for the U.S. sales

because the foreign market research

indicated letter of credit payments terms

for U.S. sales. Petitioners converted U.S.

prices quoted in yen per metric ton to

U.S. dollars per metric ton based on the

average exchange rate published in the

International Financial Statistics for the

fourth quarter of 1996, the period in

which U.S. sales occurred.

With respect to NV, petitioners

obtained from the foreign market

research home market price quotations

for actual sales from Nippon and Daido

to unrelated distributors in Japan. These

prices were quoted in Japanese yen on

a delivered basis. Petitioners calculated

net home market prices by subtracting

an amount for average delivery costs

incurred by Nippon and Daido.

Petitioners converted home market

prices quoted in yen per metric ton to

U.S. dollars per metric ton based on the

average exchange rate published in the

International Financial Statistics for the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices 45227

fourth quarter of 1996, the period in

which U.S. sales occurred.

Petitioners made a circumstance of

sale adjustment for imputed credit

expenses by subtracting home market

credit expenses from the reported home

market prices. Petitioners did not add

U.S. imputed credit expenses to the net

home market prices since the foreign

market research showed letter of credit

payment terms for U.S. sales. Petitioners

calculated home market imputed credit

expenses based on the average payment

period reported in the foreign market

research of 115 days, and the average

annual lending rate in Japan for the first

quarter of 1996, the most current annual

lending rate published by the

International Financial Statistics for

Japan. Petitioners also adjusted the

reported prices for differences in

packing costs by subtracting home

market packing costs and by adding

packing costs incurred for U.S. sales to

the reported net home market sales

price.

Comparison of NV and net U.S. prices

for sales of SSWR from Japan results in

estimated dumping margins that range

from 14.53 percent to 29.49 percent.

Korea

Petitioners identified three Korean

exporters and producers of SSWR:

Pohang Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (‘‘Posco’’);

Dongbang Special Steel Co. Ltd.

(‘‘Dongbang’’); and Sammi Steel Co. Ltd.

(‘‘Sammi’’).

Petitioners based export price on

actual, port-of-export, prices for U.S.

sales made by Posco to unaffiliated

trading companies during the fourth

quarter of 1996, for the stainless steel

wire rod grades most commonly

exported to the United States from

Korea, which they obtained from foreign

market research. In addition, petitioners

calculated net U.S. prices by subtracting

from export prices amounts to deliver

the subject merchandise from the

factory to the port of export based on

information obtained from foreign

market research. Petitioners added to

these prices amounts for duty drawback.

Petitioners also converted the reported

U.S. prices from Korean won per metric

ton to U.S. dollars per metric ton based

on the average exchange rate published

in the International Financial Statistics

for the fourth quarter of 1996, the period

in which the U.S. sales occurred.

With respect to NV, the petitioners

obtained actual, delivered home market

prices for Posco from the foreign market

research. Petitioners calculated net

home market prices for sales made in

Korea by subtracting amounts for

discounts and rebates and delivery costs

as obtained through foreign market

research, and by subtracting imputed

credit expenses from the reported gross

home market sales prices. Petitioners

calculated imputed credit expenses

based on the average payment period

reported in the foreign market research

of 75 days, and the average lending rate

in Korea published by the International

Financial Statistics for the fourth

quarter of 1996. Petitioners also

adjusted the reported prices for

differences in packing costs by

subtracting home market packing costs

from the reported home market prices

and by adding packing costs incurred

for U.S. sales to the reported home

market prices. Petitioners converted

home market prices from Korean won

per metric ton to U.S. dollars per metric

ton by using the Korean won/U.S. dollar

exchange rate in effect during the period

in which the U.S. sales occurred. The

exchange rates used to make currency

conversions were the rates published in

the International Financial Statistics for

the fourth quarter 1996.

Comparison of NV and net U.S. prices

for sales of SSWR from Korea results in

estimated dumping margins that range

from 23.81 percent to 28.44 percent (see

Initiation Checklist, dated August 19,

1997).

Spain

Petitioners identified Roldan, S.A.

(‘‘Roldan’’) as the sole exporter and

producer of SSWR from Spain.

Petitioners based export price on

information obtained through foreign

market research for recent sales by

Roldan for the SSWR grades most

commonly exported to the United States

from Spain. Petitioners calculated net

U.S. prices by subtracting estimated

costs for ocean freight and insurance

and for U.S. duties and fees from

reported U.S. prices. Petitioners did not

subtract costs incurred to transport the

stainless steel wire rod from the factory

to the port of export and from the U.S.

port to the customer’s location in the

United States.

Petitioners calculated the cost of

international freight based upon the

average difference in the CIF values and

the U.S. Customs values reported in the

official U.S. import statistics. Petitioners

subtracted amounts for U.S. import

duties and customs user fees. Petitioners

also subtracted amounts for the U.S.

harbor maintenance fee and for the U.S.

merchandise processing fee. Petitioners

did not calculate imputed credit

expenses for Roldan’s U.S. sales because

petitioners did not have information

concerning the payment terms for these

sales.

With respect to NV, petitioners

obtained home market prices through

foreign market research. Petitioners

calculated net home market prices for

sales made in Spain by subtracting an

amount for delivery costs as obtained

through foreign market research from

the reported gross home market sales

prices.

In addition, the petitioners provided

information demonstrating reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of SSWR in the home market were made

at prices below the fully allocated COP,

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales below cost investigation.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the

Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A,

and packing. To calculate COP,

petitioners based COM, with the

exception of depreciation, on their own

production experience, adjusted for

known differences between costs

incurred to produce SSWR in the

United States and costs incurred for

producing the merchandise in Spain. To

calculate depreciation the petitioner

relied upon the 1996 consolidated

financial statement from Roldan’s

parent company Acerinox.

To calculate Roldan’s SG&A and

financing expenses petitioners also

relied upon the 1996 consolidated

financial statements from Acerinox.

Petitioners maintain that they relied

upon Acerinox’s consolidated financial

statements because they were unable to

obtain Roldan’s financial statements.

Since steel production appears to be the

primary business activity of the

consolidated Acerinox Group, we

considered it reasonable to rely on its

financial data for determining these

costs for purposes of the petition.

Petitioners added to the COP the

average packing costs reported by the

U.S. producers. Based upon the

comparison of the adjusted prices of the

foreign like product in the home market

to the calculated COP, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

were made below the COP within the

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. Accordingly, with respect to the

Spanish case, the Department is

initiating a country-wide cost

investigation.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Act, petitioners also

based NV on CV. For purposes of this

initiation, we are accepting CV as the

appropriate basis for NV. Petitioners

calculated CV using the same COM,

SG&A, and interest expense figures used

to compute Spain’s home market costs.

Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the

Act, petitioners also added to CV an

amount for profit. Profit was based upon
45228 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

the consolidated audited financial

statements of Acerinox.

Comparison between Roldan’s U.S.

prices and the constructed values

results in dumping margins that range

from 31.00 to 63.39 percent.

Sweden

Petitioners identified Fagersta

Stainless AB (‘‘Fagersta’’) as the sole

exporter and producer of SSWR from

Sweden. Fagersta is a joint venture

company formed by the two of the

largest steel producing companies in

Sweden: Avesta Sheffield AB and

Sandvik Steel. Petitioners based export

price on U.S. sales by Avesta Sheffield

AB during November 1996 of the SSWR

most commonly exported to the United

States from Sweden. Petitioners

calculated net U.S. prices by subtracting

from export prices an estimate of the

costs incurred to transport the SSWR

from the factory to the customer’s

location in the United States.

Petitioners estimated the cost of

international freight based upon the

weighted average difference for certain

U.S. ports between the CIF values and

the FOB values reported in the official

U.S. import statistics for November 1996

for imports from Sweden. Petitioners

estimated U.S. inland freight costs based

on the distance from the U.S. port of

entry to the U.S. customer’s location.

Petitioners subtracted amounts for U.S.

import duties, for the U.S. harbor

maintenance fee, and for the U.S.

merchandise processing fee. Petitioners

added duty drawback to the U.S. prices

for comparisons that involved grades of

SSWR that include molybdenum or

titanium based on an amount obtained

through foreign market research.

With respect to NV, petitioners

obtained home market prices from

foreign market research. The foreign

market research provided information

on the base prices, surcharges,

discounts, payment terms and estimated

sale-by-sale delivery costs for each of

the home market sales. Petitioners

added the surcharges to the reported

base prices, and subtracted the

discounts and estimated sale-by-sale

delivery costs. Petitioners converted

home market prices quoted in Swedish

kronor per kilogram to U.S. dollars per

pound by using a conversion ratio of

one kilogram to 2.2046 pounds and the

Swedish kronor/U.S. dollar exchange

rate in effect during the month in which

the U.S. sales occurred. The exchange

rates used to make currency conversions

were the rates published in the

International Financial Statistics for

November 1996, the month in which of

the U.S. sales occurred.

Petitioners made a circumstance of

sale adjustment for imputed credit

expenses by subtracting home market

credit expenses and by adding U.S.

imputed credit expenses to the net

home market prices calculated in the

petition. Petitioners calculated home

market imputed credit expenses based

on the average payment period reported

in the foreign market research, and the

average lending rate in Sweden

published in the International Financial

Statistics for the fourth quarter of 1996.

Petitioners calculated U.S. imputed

credit expenses based on payment terms

included in the foreign market research,

of 60 days and the average lending rate

in the United States published in the

International Financial Statistics.

Petitioners did not adjust for differences

in packing costs because petitioners

assumed that packing costs were the

same for home market and U.S. sales.

Comparison of NV and net U.S. prices

for sales of SSWR from Sweden results

in estimated dumping margins that

range from 21.17 percent to 22.74

percent.

Taiwan

Petitioners identified three Taiwan

exporters and producers of SSWR:

Walsin-CarTech Specialty Steel Corp.;

Yieh Hsing; and Yieh United Steel Corp.

Most of the domestic production of

SSWR is sold to unaffiliated end-users

and includes delivery charges to the

customer. Petitioners obtained prices for

U.S. sales by Yieh Hsing during

November 1996 for the grades of SSWR

that are most commonly exported to the

United States from Taiwan. Petitioners

used export prices as the basis for U.S.

prices because the SSWR was sold prior

to the date of importation and to an

unaffiliated U.S. distributor. Petitioners

provided port of export prices for Yieh

Hsing’s U.S. sales. Petitioners subtracted

foreign inland freight from the reported

U.S. prices. Petitioners did not calculate

imputed credit expenses for the U.S.

sales since letter of credit payment

terms were available for these sales.

Petitioners provided information

showing that the volume of the home

market sales is sufficient to form a basis

for NV and provided prices for actual

recent sales from the SSWR producers

to unaffiliated customers in Taiwan.

Petitioners calculated net NV by

subtracting amounts for delivery costs

and imputed credit expenses from the

reported gross home market price.

Petitioners based credit expenses on the

average payment period of 85 days and

the average borrowing rate reported in

the foreign market research.

Additionally, petitioners adjusted NV

for differences in packing costs between

the U.S. and domestic sales. Finally,

petitioners converted home market

prices in New Taiwan dollars per metric

ton to U.S. dollars per metric ton by

using the New Taiwan dollar/U.S. dollar

exchange rate in effect during the month

in which the U.S. sales occurred. For

conversion purposes, petitioners used

the monthly average exchange rates

published by the Federal Reserve rather

than the monthly average exchange rates

published by the International Monetary

Fund (IMF) because Taiwan is not a

member country of the IMF; thus, there

are no IMF-published exchange rates for

Taiwan.

In addition, petitioners provided

information demonstrating reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of SSWR in the home market were made

at prices below the fully allocated COP,

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a Taiwan-wide

sales below cost investigation.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the

Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A,

and packing. To calculate COP, the

petitioners calculated COM primarily

using foreign market research.

To calculate SG&A and finance

expenses petitioners relied on amounts

reported in Yieh Hsing’s 1996 financial

statements and other financial data. We

recalculated Yieh Hsing’s SG&A and

finance expenses to reflect the amounts

reported in its 1996 financial

statements. Petitioner based packing

costs on data obtained from foreign

market research. Based upon the

comparison of the adjusted prices of the

foreign like product in the home market

to the calculated COP, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

were made below the COP within the

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act (see Initiation Checklist, dated

August 19, 1997). Accordingly, the

Department is initiating a Taiwan-wide

cost investigation.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Act, petitioners also

based NV for sales in Taiwan on CV. For

this initiation, we are accepting CV as

an appropriate basis for NV. Petitioners

calculated CV using the same COM,

SG&A, and interest expense figures used

to compute Taiwan home market costs.

Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the

Act, petitioners also added to CV an

amount for profit. Profit was based upon

Yieh Hsing’s 1996 consolidated audited

financial statements.

Comparison of NV and net U.S. price

of SSWR from Taiwan results in an

estimated dumping margin of 16.74

percent. Comparisons between Yieh

Hsing’s U.S. prices and the constructed
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices 45229

1See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

values result in dumping margins that

range from 9.61 percent to 10.05

percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of SSWR from Germany,

Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold at less than fair value.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

We have examined the petition on

SSWR and have found that it meets the

requirements of section 732 of the Act,

including the requirements concerning

allegations of the material injury or

threat of material injury to the domestic

producers of a domestic like product by

reason of the subject imports, allegedly

sold at less than fair value. Therefore,

we are initiating antidumping duty

investigations to determine whether

imports of SSWR from Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value. Unless extended, we will make

our preliminary determinations for the

antidumping duty investigations by

January 6, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of Germany, Italy, Japan,

Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. We

will attempt to provide a copy of the

public version of each petition to each

exporter named in the petition (as

appropriate).

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by September

15, 1997, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of SSWR from

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

Sweden, and Taiwan are causing

material injury, or threatening to cause

material injury, to a U.S. industry. Any

negative ITC determination will result

in the particular investigation being

terminated; otherwise, the

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

Dated: August 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–22690 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–475–821]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation: Certain Stainless

Steel Wire Rod (‘‘SSWR’’) from Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Lockard or Kelly Parkhill,

Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

3099, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–2786.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’) effective

January 1, 1995 (‘‘the Act’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations as amended by

the regulations published in the Federal

Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27295).

The Petition

On July 30, 1997, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by AL Tech

Speciality Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Republic Engineered

Steels, Talley Metals Technology, Inc.,

and United Steelworkers of America,

AFL–CIO/CLC (the petitioners).

Supplements to the petition were filed

on August 6, 13, 14, and 15, 1997.

In accordance with section 701(a) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

producers and/or exporters of SSWR in

Italy receive countervailable subsidies.

The petitioners state that they have

standing to file the petition because they

are interested parties, as defined under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who account for

production of the domestic like product.

The International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for

determining whether ‘‘the domestic

industry’’ has been injured, must also

determine what constitutes a domestic

like product in order to define the

industry. While both the Department

and the ITC must apply the same

statutory provision regarding the

domestic like product (section 771(10)

of the Act), they do so for different

purposes and pursuant to separate and

distinct authority. In addition, the

Department’s determination is subject to

limitations of time and information.

Although this may result in different

definitions of the domestic like product,

such differences do not render the

decision of either agency contrary to the

law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the

reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

The petition refers to the single

domestic like product defined in the

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, below.

The Department has no basis on the

record to find the petition’s definition of

the domestic like product to be

inaccurate. In this regard, we have

found no basis on which to reject

petitioners’ representations that there

are clear dividing lines, in terms of