Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices 51577

If NV was calculated at a different

level of trade than CEP, we made an

adjustment in accordance with section

773(a)(7) of the Act, as discussed in the

Level of Trade section above.

Because Ivaco paid commissions on

U.S. sales, in calculating NV for the

respondent, we deducted the lesser of

either (1) the weighted-average amount

of commission paid on a U.S. sale for a

particular product, or (2) the weightedaverage amount of indirect selling

expenses paid on the home market sales

for a particular product. See 351.410(e),

62 FR 27414 (May 19, 1997). For

matches of similar merchandise, we

made adjustments, where appropriate,

for physical differences in the

merchandise in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars in accordance with section

773(A) of the Act based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information

determined to be acceptable for use in

making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

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

exceeds the export price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average margin

percentage

Stelco, Inc. ............................ 2.43

Sidbec-Dosco (Ispat), Inc. .... 11.76

Ivaco, Inc. ............................. 7.49

All Others Rate ..................... 7.79

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination, whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threatening

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least six copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than December

16, 1997, and rebuttal briefs, no later

than December 30, 1997. A list of

authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Such summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

January 6, 1998, at the U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. We will make our

final determination not later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of

the Act.

Dated: September 24, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–26040 Filed 9–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–822]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Steel Wire Rod From Germany

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judith Wey Rudman or John Brinkmann,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0192 or (202) 482–5288,

respectively.

The Applicable Statute

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

references to the provisions codified at

19 CFR part 353 (April 1997). Although

the Department’s new regulations,

codified at 19 CFR 351 (62 FR 27296;

May 19, 1997), do not govern these

proceedings, citations to those

regulations are provided, where

appropriate, to explain current

departmental practice.

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that steel

wire rod (‘‘SWR’’) from Germany is

being, or is likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value

(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of

the Act. The estimated margins are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation on March 18, 1997 (see

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Steel Wire Rod from

Canada, Germany, Trinidad and

Tobago, and Venezuela, 62 FR 13854

(March 24, 1997), ‘‘Notice of

Initiation’’), the following events have

occurred:

On April 14, 1997, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case.
51578 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices

On April 21, 1997, the Department

issued the antidumping duty

questionnaire to the following

producers/exporters of SWR to the

United States: Brandenburg

Elektrostahlwerk GmbH

(‘‘Brandenburg’’); Ispat Hamburger

Stahlwerke GmbH (‘‘IHSW’’); Saarstahl

AG (‘‘Saarstahl’’); and Thyssen Stahl AG

(‘‘Thyssen’’) (collectively

‘‘respondents’’). The questionnaire is

divided into four sections: Section A

requests general information concerning

a company’s corporate structure and

business practices, the merchandise

under investigation that it sells, and the

sales of the merchandise in all of its

markets. Sections B and C request home

market sales listings and U.S. sales

listings, respectively. Section D requests

information on the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) of the foreign like product and

the constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the

subject merchandise.

During April and May 1997, the

Department received interested party

comments regarding modifications to

the product characteristic reporting

requirements. On May 22, 1997, the

Department issued revised product

characteristic reporting instructions.

IHSW submitted its questionnaire

responses in May and June 1997. The

Department issued supplemental

requests for information in June, July,

and September 1997, and received the

supplemental responses to these

requests in July, August, and September

1997. The petitioners in this

investigation (Connecticut Steel Group,

Co-Steel Raritan, GS Industries, Inc.,

Keystone Steel & Wire Co., North Star

Steel Texas, Inc., and Northwestern

Steel & Wire Co.) filed comments on

IHSW’s questionnaire responses in June,

July, August, and September 1997.

On June 11, 1997, Saarstahl informed

the Department that it did not have the

necessary resources to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire. In addition,

without explanation, neither

Brandenburg nor Thyssen responded to

the questionnaire (see the ‘‘Facts

Available’’ section below, for further

discussion).

On July 3, 1997, petitioners made a

timely request that the Department

postpone the preliminary determination

in this investigation and the companion

investigations of SWR from Canada,

Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela to

September 24, 1997. We did so on July

14, 1997, in accordance with section

733(c)(1) of the Act (see Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determinations:

Steel Wire Rod from Canada, Germany,

Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela,

62 FR 38257 (July 17, 1997 )).

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the

Act and section 353.20(b)(1) of the

Department’s interim regulations, on

September 9, 1997, IHSW requested

that, in the event of an affirmative

preliminary determination in this

investigation, the Department postpone

its final determination. While IHSW is

only one of four German producer/

exporters identified in the petition, we

determine that it accounts ‘‘for a

significant proportion of exports of the

merchandise which is the subject of the

investigation,’’ and therefore, that it is

eligible to request such an extension.

First, IHSW is the only German

respondent participating in this

investigation; its exports thus account

for all of the German SWR production

analyzed by the Department for this

preliminary determination. Second, the

problem anticipated by the ‘‘significant

proportion’’ requirement—that a single

producer representing a relatively small

proportion of the production of the

subject merchandise could delay a final

determination against the wishes of the

other producers—is not present in this

proceeding. The three other German

respondents (Brandenburg, Saarstahl

and Thyssen) in this investigation did

not object to the extension request

submitted by IHSW. Finally, the

Department has identified no

compelling reason to deny IHSW’s

request for extension. For these reasons,

we are postponing the final

determination until no later than the

135th day following publication of this

preliminary determination notice.

Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly (see Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Open-End Spun Rayon

Singles Yarn From Austria, 62 FR

14399, 14400 (March 26, 1997); Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61

FR 30326 (June 14, 1996)).

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are certain hot-rolled

carbon steel and alloy steel products, in

coils, of approximately round cross

section, between 5.00 mm (0.20 inch)

and 19.0 mm (0.75 inch), inclusive, in

solid cross-sectional diameter.

Specifically excluded are steel products

possessing the above noted physical

characteristics and meeting the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) definitions for

(a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high

nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; (e)

free machining steel that contains by

weight 0.03 percent or more of lead,

0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08

percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.4

percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05

percent of selenium, and/or more than

0.01 percent of tellurium; or (f) concrete

reinforcing bars and rods.

The following products are also

excluded from the scope of this

investigation:

Coiled products 5.50 mm or less in

true diameter with an average partial

decarburization per coil of no more than

70 microns in depth, no inclusions

greater than 20 microns, containing by

weight the following: carbon greater

than or equal to 0.68 percent; aluminum

less than or equal to 0.005 percent;

phosphorous plus sulfur less than or

equal to 0.040 percent; maximum

combined copper, nickel and chromium

content of 0.13 percent; and nitrogen

less than or equal to 0.006 percent. This

product is commonly referred to as

‘‘Tire Cord Wire Rod.’’

Coiled products 7.9 to 18 mm in

diameter, with a partial decarburization

of 75 microns or less in depth and

seams no more than 75 microns in

depth, containing 0.48 to 0.73 percent

carbon by weight. This product is

commonly referred to as ‘‘Valve Spring

Quality Wire Rod.’’

The products under investigation are

currently classifiable under subheadings

7213.91.3000, 7213.91.4500,

7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030,

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, and

7227.90.6050 of the HTSUS. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of

this investigation is dispositive.

North American Wire Products

Corporation (NAW), an importer of the

subject merchandise from Germany, has

requested that the Department exclude

steel wire rod used to manufacture pipe

wrapping wire from the scope of the

antidumping and the companion

countervailing duty investigations.

Petitioners have not agreed to this scope

exclusion. For purposes of the

preliminary determination, we have not

excluded steel wire rod for

manufacturing pipe wrapping wire from

the scope. However, we will address

this issue further in our final

determination.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

January 1 through December 31, 1996.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of SWR

by IHSW to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we would
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices 51579

normally compare the export price or

constructed export price to the normal

value. Although IHSW responded to the

Department’s questionnaires, as

discussed in the ‘‘Facts Available’’

section of this notice below, there are

significant deficiencies that have

rendered their response unreliable and

therefore unusable for the calculation of

LTFV margins in this preliminary

determination. Therefore, in accordance

with section 776 of the Act, our results

are based on facts otherwise available.

Facts Available

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

that if an interested party (1) withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, (2) fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested, (3)

significantly impedes a determination

under the antidumping statute, or (4)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the

Department shall use facts otherwise

available in reaching the applicable

determination (subject to subsections

782 (d) and (e)). As detailed below, the

Department has determined that all four

respondents have failed to cooperate to

the best of their ability in this

investigation as defined under 776(a)(2)

and that the use of facts otherwise

available is applicable.

Brandenburg, Saarstahl, and Thyssen

have clearly failed to cooperate to the

best of their ability in this investigation,

as they have not responded to the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire. Accordingly, the

Department is required to base the

antidumping rate for these companies

on the facts otherwise available.

The use of facts otherwise available is

also applicable to IHSW because they

‘‘fail[ed] to provide [requested]

information by the deadlines for

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested.’’ As

discussed in the ‘‘Case History’’ section

above, and as required by section

782(d), the Department informed IHSW

of the deficiencies in its responses

through the issuance of several

extensive supplemental questionnaires

covering all sections of the original

questionnaire. However, despite the

detailed requests for supplemental

information issued by the Department

and the extension of time granted to

IHSW to file its responses, IHSW’s

questionnaire responses remained

seriously deficient.

The significant deficiencies in the

information submitted by IHSW

include: (1) A significant number of

missing sales in the home market sales

database, rendering the database

unreliable and unusable for making

price-to-price comparisons and

calculating a profit amount for CV; (2)

the failure to notify the Department that

major inputs were purchased from

affiliated suppliers and, once this fact

was discovered, the failure to

demonstrate that inputs purchased from

affiliated suppliers were arm’s-length

transactions. Without information as to

whether transfer prices between IHSW

and its affiliates were set at arm’s length

or the affiliated suppliers’ cost

information, we cannot determine if the

major inputs were properly valued in

calculating the reported COPs and CVs.

Furthermore, without information

concerning the quantities of inputs

purchased from affiliated suppliers, the

Department cannot make adjustments to

IHSW’s COP and CV databases. Since

the COP and CV data cannot be relied

upon, the Department cannot conduct a

COP analysis, calculate the differencein-merchandise adjustments (difmers),

or calculate an accurate profit for

purposes of calculating CV; (3) IHSW

has not provided product specific costs

and has failed to explain how its cost

groups were derived, raising further

concerns about the reliability of the COP

and CV data; and (4) there are errors and

inconsistencies in IHSW’s creation of

product control numbers. If product

control numbers are not properly

assigned based on product matching

criteria, the Department cannot

accurately determine which products in

the home market should be matched to

U.S. sales for purposes of making priceto-price comparisons. (For a more

detailed discussion of the deficiencies

in the information IHSW has provided,

see the September 24, 1997,

Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland.)

IHSW’s questionnaire responses

constituted deficient submissions

within the meaning of section 782(d).

Under these circumstances, section

776(a) directs the Department to use

facts available subject to section 782(e).

Section 782(e) provides that the

Department shall not decline to

consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and is necessary

to the determination, but does not meet

all the applicable requirements

established by the Department, if—

(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 Department with

respect to the information, and

(5) the information can be used

without undue difficulties.

Thus, if any one of these criteria is not

met, the Department may decline to

consider the information at issue in

making its determination. IHSW’s

information has satisfied the first two

criteria. Regarding criterion (3), as

detailed above, IHSW’s home market

sales data and cost of production

information is so deficient as to render

it unreliable. As to criterion (4), IHSW

has not demonstrated that it acted to the

best of its ability in providing the

requested information because IHSW

failed to respond in a satisfactory

manner to the Department’s requests for

information. Despite repeated requests

that IHSW correct the deficiencies in its

submissions, as detailed above,

significant inconsistencies remain in

IHSW’s data. Finally, as to criterion (5),

the information is so deficient that the

Department cannot conduct a proper

LTFV analysis.

As indicated above, the analysis of

IHSW’s responses to date, in the context

of sections 782 (d) and (e), demonstrates

that IHSW has failed to provide its

home market sales and COP information

in the form and manner requested. The

information provided by IHSW is

unreliable and inadequate for the

purpose of calculating a preliminary

LTFV margin. Section 776(a) thus

requires the Department to use facts

otherwise available in making its

preliminary determination with respect

to IHSW.

Section 776(b) provides that adverse

inferences may be used for a party that

has failed to cooperate by not acting to

the best of its ability to comply with

requests for information (see also the

Statement of Administrative Action

(‘‘SAA’’), accompanying the URAA,

H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess.

870). As discussed above, Brandenburg,

IHSW, Saarstahl, and Thyssen have

failed to act to the best of their ability

to comply with requests for information

and, therefore, adverse inferences are

warranted with respect to all four

companies.

Consistent with Department practice

in cases where respondents refuse to

participate or provide seriously

deficient information that precludes the

Department from conducting its LTFV

analysis, as facts otherwise available, we

are basing their margins on information

in the petition. Section 776(c) provides

that when the Department relies on

secondary information (e.g., the

petition) as the facts otherwise

available, it must, to the extent
51580 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices

practicable, corroborate that information

from independent sources that are

reasonably at its disposal. The

Department reviewed the adequacy and

accuracy of the secondary information

in the petition from which the margins

were calculated during our preinitiation analysis of the petition, to the

extent appropriate information was

available for this purpose, (e.g., import

statistics, independent trade data, U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, International

Energy Agency). (See Notice of

Initiation and September 24, 1997,

Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland).

For purposes of the preliminary

determination, the Department

reexamined the price information

provided in the petition in light of

information obtained during the

investigation, and found that it

continues to be of probative value (see

the September 24, 1997, Memorandum

to Richard W. Moreland).

A. Brandenburg, Saarstahl, and Thyssen

Consistent with Department practice,

as facts otherwise available, the

Department is assigning to Brandenburg,

Saarstahl, and Thyssen, the companies

that did not respond to the Department’s

requests for information, the highest

margin from the petition (as adjusted by

the Department), 153.10 percent (see the

March 18, 1997, ‘‘Import Administration

AD Investigation Initiation Checklist’’

and the Notice of Initiation for a

discussion of the margin calculations in

the petition and the Department’s

recalculations).

B. IHSW

Since IHSW made some effort to

comply with the Department’s requests

for information, consistent with

Department practice, we are assigning

IHSW a facts available margin based on

a simple average of the margins in the

petition (as adjusted by the

Department), 72.51 percent.

C. The All-Others Rate

All foreign manufacturers/exporters

in this investigation are being assigned

dumping margins on the basis of facts

otherwise available. Section 735(c)(5) of

the Act provides that where the

dumping margins established for all

exporters and producers individually

investigated are determined entirely

under section 776, the Department

‘‘* * * may use any reasonable method

to establish the estimated all-others rate

for exporters and producers not

individually investigated, including

averaging the estimated weighted

average dumping margins determined

for the exporters and producers

individually investigated.’’ This

provision contemplates that we weight

average the facts-available margins to

establish the all-others rate. Where the

data is not available to weight average

the facts available rates, the SAA, at

873, provides that we may use other

reasonable methods.

Inasmuch as we do not have the data

necessary to weight average the

respondents’ facts available margins, we

are basing the All-Others rate on a

simple average of the margins in the

petition (as adjusted by the

Department), 72.51 percent.

Verification

We will issue another supplemental

questionnaire to IHSW in an effort to

obtain complete and accurate responses.

If the requested information is received

in a timely manner, we will attempt to

conduct verification of the company’s

information as provided in section

782(i) of the Act. If IHSW’s reported

information can be verified, we will use

such information in making the final

determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

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

exceeds the export price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/Manufacturer

Weighted-average margin

percentage

Brandenburg

Elektrostahlwerk GmbH .... 153.10

Ispat Hamburger Stahlwerke

GmbH ................................ 72.51

Saarstahl AG ........................ 153.10

Thyssen Stahl AG ................. 153.10

All-Others .............................. 72.51

The all-others rate applies to all

entries of subject merchandise except

for the entries of merchandise produced

by the exporters/manufacturers listed

above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least six copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than January 5,

1998, and rebuttal briefs, no later than

January 12, 1998. A list of authorities

used and an executive summary of

issues should accompany any briefs

submitted to the Department. Such

summary should be limited to five pages

total, including footnotes. In accordance

with section 774 of the Act, we will

hold a public hearing, if requested, to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the

hearing will be held on January 14,

1998, at 8:30 a.m. in room 1414 at the

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination not later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act.

Dated: September 24, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–26041 Filed 9–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P