[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 191 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58736-58744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25271]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[(A-533-819), (A-557-810), (A-570-859)]


Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Steel Wire Rope From India and the People's Republic of China; 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair 
Value: Steel Wire Rope From Malaysia

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Kemp or Keir Whitson at (202) 482-
1276 or (202) 482-1777, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, 
Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

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 Department of Commerce (the Department) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 
1999).

Preliminary Determinations

    We preliminarily determine that steel wire rope from India and the 
People's Republic of China (the PRC) is being sold in the United States 
at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Act. 
We also preliminarily determine that steel wire rope from Malaysia is 
not being sold in the United States at LTFV. The estimated margins of 
sales at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of 
this notice.

Case History

    These investigations were initiated on March 17, 2000.\1\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Steel Wire Rope from 
India, Malaysia, the People's Republic of China and Thailand, 65 FR 
16173 (March 27, 2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of 
these investigations, the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner in this investigation is the Committee of 
Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 58737]]

    On April 26, 2000, the United States International Trade Commission 
(the ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of wire rope from India, Malaysia and the PRC 
are materially injuring the United States industry. With regard to 
Thailand, the ITC determined that either there is no reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports of steel wire rope from Thailand 
or that such imports are negligible. See Steel Wire Rope from China, 
India, Malaysia, and Thailand, 65 FR 24505 (April 26, 2000). As a 
result, the investigation on Thailand was terminated.
    The Department issued antidumping questionnaires to the respondents 
in India and Malaysia on May 9, 2000.\2\ For the PRC investigation, on 
April 28, 2000, we sent a letter to the Ministry of Foreign Trade & 
Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) requesting information on exporters of 
steel wire rope from the PRC and the volume of merchandise that those 
exporters had shipped to the United States during the period of 
investigation (POI). On May 17, 2000, we sent the antidumping 
questionnaire to MOFTEC with a letter requesting that it forward the 
questionnaire to all exporters of steel wire rope who had shipments 
during the POI. In addition, on May 17, 2000, we sent the questionnaire 
to all Chinese exporters who had contacted us through counsel, with 
instructions to complete and return the questionnaire by the given 
deadline. We received responses from eight companies from the PRC, one 
from an Indian company and one from a Malaysian company. We issued 
supplemental questionnaires to our selected respondents, where 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (This section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of 
production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed 
value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. Section E 
requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 13, 2000, the Department postponed the preliminary 
determinations in these cases 50 days in accordance with section 
733(c)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2). See Notice of 
Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Steel Wire 
Rope from India, Malaysia, and the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
45037 (July 20, 2000).

Postponement of the Final Determination for India

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On September 8, 2000, Usha Martin Industries, Ltd (Usha), the 
respondent in the Indian case, requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until 135 days after the 
publication of the preliminary determination. Usha also included a 
request to extend the provisional measures to not more than six months. 
Accordingly, since we have made an affirmative preliminary 
determination, we have postponed the final determination for India 
until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Periods of Investigation

    The POI for the Indian and Malaysian cases is January 1, 1999, 
through December 31, 1999. This period corresponds to the four most 
recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition 
(i.e., March 2000). The POI for the China case is July 1, 1999, through 
December 31, 1999, the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 
month of filing the petition.

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is steel 
wire rope. Steel wire rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of 
iron or carbon or stainless steel, other than stranded wire, not fitted 
with fittings or made up into articles, and not made up of brass-plated 
wire. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under 
subheadings: 7312.10.6030, 7312.10.6060, 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, 
and 7312.10.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs Service purposes, the written description of the scope of these 
investigations is dispositive.

Facts Available

    In its home market sales database, Usha, the respondent in the 
Indian case, reported a code designated ``other'' for certain sales 
observations in response to the requested product characteristic 
category for ``class of wire rope'' (class). The Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire requesting that Usha re-code these 
observations with the correct class designation. Usha complied in part 
and provided the class for the majority of sales in question. However, 
for the remaining sales, Usha stated that it produced certain products 
that were outside the specifications that it uses to determine the 
class for the merchandise. Therefore, Usha could only provide the 
``other'' designation for certain sales. In order to avoid introducing 
any distortions from product misclassification in the fair value 
comparison of Usha's home market sales to its U.S. sales, we have 
determined that we cannot use the product characteristic with a code 
designated as ``other'' for certain home market sales and, therefore, 
the use of facts otherwise available is necessary in this situation, 
pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party or 
any other person--(A) withholds information that has been requested by 
the administering authority, (B) fails to provide such information by 
the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the 
Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.'' 
The statute requires that certain conditions be met before the 
Department may resort to the facts otherwise available. Where the 
Department determines that a response to a request for information does 
not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that 
the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and 
will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to 
remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to

[[Page 58738]]

remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department 
may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original 
and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Briefly, 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 administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, and 
the Department can use the information without undue difficulties, the 
statute requires it to do so.
    As noted above, we determined that we cannot rely on home market 
sales for which the class product characteristic was designated as 
``other.'' Therefore, we did not use such sales in matching to reported 
U.S. sales.

Critical Circumstances

    In letters filed on August 25, 2000, the petitioner alleged that 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of steel wire rope from 
India and the PRC. Under section 733(e)(1) of the Act, when critical 
circumstances allegations are submitted more than 20 days before the 
scheduled date of the preliminary determinations, the Department shall 
determine on the basis of information available to it at the time 
whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist. If critical circumstances are found to exist, then 
a preliminary finding will be issued. For the reasons discussed below, 
we are issuing preliminary critical circumstances determinations at 
this time in the investigations of imports of steel wire rope from 
India and the PRC.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time 
may be considered ``massive.''
    Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines 
``relatively short period'' as normally being the period beginning on 
the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 
and ending at least three months later. The regulations also provide, 
however, that if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or 
producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning 
of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may 
consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.
    In determining whether the above criteria have been satisfied, we 
examined: (1) The evidence presented in the petition; (2) recent import 
statistics released by the Census Bureau after the initiation of the 
LTFV investigations; and (3) the ITC preliminary injury determinations.

A. History of Dumping and Importer Knowledge

    The petitioner has provided evidence on the record of at least one 
affirmative European Union antidumping and injury determination, 
announced in August 1999, on steel wire rope from India and the PRC. On 
this basis, we find a history of dumping and material injury from India 
and the PRC pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.

B. Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act, as stated above, the Department normally compares the import 
volume of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately 
preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``base period''), and 
at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the 
``comparison period''), see 19 CFR 351.206(i). Imports normally will be 
considered massive when imports during the comparison period have 
increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base 
period.
    Based on the most recent U.S. Census import data, we examined the 
increase in import volumes from November 1999 through February 2000, as 
compared to the import volume during March 2000 through June 2000. We 
found that imports of steel wire rope from India increased by 77.20 
percent, and that imports from the PRC increased by 15.53 percent, over 
the periods in question.\3\ See Memorandum to the File, Critical 
Circumstances Analysis Regarding Massive Imports (September 25, 2000) 
(Memorandum to the File). Therefore, pursuant to section 733(e) of the 
Act and section 351.206(h) of the Department's regulations, we 
preliminarily determine that there have been massive imports of steel 
wire rope from India and the PRC over a relatively short time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We received company-specific shipment data from the two 
respondents in the PRC case, Fasten Group Import and Export, Co., 
Ltd. (Fasten) and Nantong Zhongde. Fasten's shipment figures support 
our finding of massive imports of steel wire rope into the United 
States, in that they demonstrate an increase of greater than 30 
percent. See Memorandum to the File. Nantong Zhongde filed shipment 
figures on September 11, 2000. However, because the figures were not 
reported on a monthly basis, the shipment data could not be used in 
this preliminary determination. Nantong filed a subsequent 
submission containing monthly shipment data. This submission was 
filed too late to be used in this determination. Usha, the Indian 
respondent, filed shipment figures on September 11, 2000. The 
submission, however, was not properly filed and the data contained 
therein could not be used in this preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusion

    For the above-referenced reasons, we preliminarily determine that 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist for imports of steel wire rope from India and the 
PRC.

D. Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will make final determinations concerning critical circumstances 
for India and the PRC concurrently with our final determinations 
regarding sales at LTFV in those investigations. Our final 
determination in the PRC case will be issued no later than 75 days 
(unless extended) after the preliminary LTFV determination. The final 
determination for the Indian case, which has already been extended, 
will be issued 135 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act permits us

[[Page 58739]]

to investigate either 1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of 
products that is statistically valid based on the information available 
at the time of selection, or 2) exporters and producers accounting for 
the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be 
examined. Usha and Kiswire SDN.BHD (Kiswire) are the only known 
significant producers in India and Malaysia, respectively. With regard 
to the PRC, on June 12, 2000, we received Section A questionnaire 
responses from eight Chinese exporters. However, due to limited 
resources we determined that we could investigate only the two largest 
producers. See Memorandum from Jim Kemp, dated June 16, 2000. 
Therefore, we chose Fasten Import-Export Company (Fasten) and Nantong 
Zhongde (Nantong) as mandatory respondents in this case.

Product Comparisons (India and Malaysia)

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents covered by the description in the Scope of 
Investigation section, above, and sold in India or Malaysia during the 
POI are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have 
relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
comparison-market sales of the foreign like product or CV: type of 
steel wire, diameter, type of core, class of wire rope, grade of steel, 
number of wires per strand, design of strands and lay of rope. These 
characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market 
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most 
similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed 
above.

Product Comparisons (the People's Republic of China)

    As described below, we relied upon CV, based on a NME analysis, for 
our comparisons to U.S. sales.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of steel wire rope from India and 
Malaysia were made in the United States at less than fair value, we 
compared the export price (EP) and the constructed export price (CEP) 
to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Constructed Export 
Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. To determine whether 
sales of steel wire rope from the PRC were made in the United States at 
less than fair value, we compared EP and CEP to a NV based on an NME 
analysis, as described below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs and 
CEPs. We compared these to weighted-average home market prices or CVs, 
as appropriate, in the market economy cases and to CV in the NME case.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. 
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold by the exporter or producer outside the 
United States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the 
United States, before the date of importation, or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States.
    Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold inside the United States before or 
after the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under 
subsections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    For all respondents, we calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, 
based on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer 
in the United States.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we reduced the EP 
and CEP by movement expenses and export taxes and duties, where 
appropriate. For the PRC, where the respondent incurred NME movement 
expenses, including inland freight, insurance, brokerage and handling, 
marine insurance, and international ocean freight, we applied the 
appropriate surrogate value. See Memorandum from Salim Moiz Bhabhrawala 
to the File, dated September 25, 2000 (Surrogate Value Memorandum). 
Where the respondent incurred movement expenses through a market-
economy provider, we utilized the per-unit expenses as reported in its 
section C questionnaire response.
    Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to 
CEP. Accordingly, where appropriate, we deducted direct and indirect 
selling expenses related to commercial activity in the United States. 
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, where applicable, we made an 
adjustment for CEP profit.
    We determined the EP or CEP for each company as follows:

India

Usha
    We calculated a CEP for all of Usha's sales because the merchandise 
was sold through Usha's affiliated reseller (Usha Martin Americas, 
Inc.) in the United States. CEP sales were based on packed pick up, FOB 
and delivered prices. We made deductions from the starting price for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
These include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international 
freight, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage, insurance and U.S. 
duties. We also deducted the amount for discounts from the starting 
price, and added the amount for duty drawback in accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. In addition, in accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those 
selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise 
in the United States, including indirect selling expenses, credit 
expense and warranty. Finally, we made a deduction for CEP profit.

Malaysia

Kiswire
    During the POR, Kiswire made both EP and CEP transactions. We 
calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by 
Kiswire to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts 
of record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Kiswire's affiliated 
reseller (Kiswire Trading Inc.) in the United States. EP and CEP sales 
were based on the packed delivered, ex-factory, CIF, CNF (cost, 
insurance and freight) and CIF (duty paid) prices. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense 
(inland freight), international freight, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 
brokerage, insurance and U.S. duties.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including indirect selling expenses and other direct selling expenses 
(credit, warranty and royalties). Finally, we made a deduction for CEP 
profit.

The People's Republic of China

Fasten
    During the POR, Fasten made both EP and CEP transactions. We 
calculated an

[[Page 58740]]

EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Fasten to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, 
and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We 
calculated a CEP for sales made by Fasten's affiliated reseller (Fasten 
U.S.A. Inc.) in the United States. EP and CEP sales were based on the 
packed ``delivered duty paid'' (DDP) U.S. port and C&F U.S. port 
prices. We made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
include foreign movement expense (inland freight), international 
freight, U.S. brokerage, insurance, U.S. duties and U.S. inland 
freight.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, for CEP sales, we 
deducted from the starting price indirect selling expenses. Finally, we 
made a deduction for CEP profit.
Nantong
    We calculated an EP for all of Nantong's sales because the 
merchandise was sold directly by Nantong to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not 
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement 
expenses (inland freight and insurance), international freight, and 
brokerage and handling.

Normal Value for Market Economy Analysis

A. Selection of Comparison Markets for Market Economy Countries

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. The 
statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be 
considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the 
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States.
    For the Indian and Malaysian cases, we found that Usha and Kiswire 
have viable home markets of steel wire rope. The respondents submitted 
home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV.
    In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices and Calculation of Normal 
Value Based on Constructed Value, sections below.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    On July 19, and August 8, 2000, petitioners made sales below cost 
allegations against Kiswire and Usha, respectively. Based on these 
allegations and in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of steel 
wire rope manufactured in India and Malaysia were made at prices below 
the COP. As a result, the Department has conducted an investigation to 
determine whether Usha and Kiswire made sales in their respective home 
markets at prices below their respective COPs during the POI within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis 
described below.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home 
market general and administrative (G&A) expenses, selling expenses, 
commissions, packing expenses and interest expenses.
    We relied on the COP data submitted by Usha and Kiswire in their 
cost questionnaire responses, except, as noted below, in specific 
instances where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified 
or valued:
    Usha. We made adjustments to Usha's direct materials costs and 
interest expense ratio. See Memorandum from Heidi Norris, dated 
September 25, 2000.
    Kiswire. We adjusted Kiswire's interest expense ratio. See 
Memorandum from Laurens van Houten, dated September 25, 2000.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market 
sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a period 
of one year) in substantial quantities \4\ and whether such prices were 
sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, we 
determined that sales made below the COP were made in substantial 
quantities if the volume of such sales represented 20 percent or 
more of the volume of sales under consideration for the 
determination of NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts and 
rebates.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
quantities'' within an extended period of time in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) or the Act. In such cases, because we compared 
prices to POI average costs, we also determined that such sales were 
not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales.
    We found that, for certain models of steel wire rope, more than 20 
percent of the home market sales by Usha and Kiswire were made within 
an extended period of time at prices less than the COP. Further, the 
prices did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We therefore disregarded these below-cost sales and 
used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We determined price-based NVs for respondent companies as follows. 
For both respondents, we made adjustments for any differences in 
packing, and we deducted movement expenses pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred 
on comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on 
sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset).
    Company-specific adjustments are described below.
    Usha. We based home market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in India. We adjusted the starting price for 
foreign inland freight, warehousing and insurance. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home

[[Page 58741]]

market sales (credit expense, commissions, technical services and other 
directs selling expenses). No other adjustments to NV were claimed or 
allowed.
    Kiswire. We based home market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Malaysia. We adjusted the starting price for 
foreign inland freight, ocean freight, insurance, discounts, sales tax 
and billing adjustments. For comparisons made to EP sales, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home 
market sales (credit expense, commissions, warranty and bank charges) 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (e.g., credit, warranty and 
royalties ). For comparisons made to CEP sales, we did not add U.S. 
direct selling expenses. No other adjustments to NV were claimed or 
allowed.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be 
based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, 
for those models of steel wire rope for which we could not determine 
the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no 
sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparison products 
failed the COP test, we based NV on CV.
    Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the 
sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost 
of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the 
Calculation of Cost of Production section of this notice, above. We 
based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by 
the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in 
the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act.
    In addition, we used U.S. packing costs as described in the Export 
Price section of this notice, above.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. These involved the 
deduction of direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales 
from, and the addition of U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV.

E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV level of 
trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A 
expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the 
level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to 
importer. For CEP transactions, it is the level of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process 
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales 
are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison 
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For 
CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained 
information from each respondent about the marketing stages involved in 
the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of 
distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and home market 
sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting 
price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the 
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
    In the Malaysian and Indian investigations, Kiswire made both EP 
and CEP sales and Usha made only CEP sales. With respect to Kiswire's 
EP sales, we found a single level of trade in the United States, and a 
single, identical level of trade in the home market. Kiswire's EP sales 
and comparison market sales were made to distributors and end-users. In 
either case, the selling functions performed by Kiswire for the 
different customer types and channels of distribution were very 
limited, and almost identical in both markets. Other than warehousing, 
which was only provided in the home market, in both markets Kiswire 
provided the following services: price negotiation, order processing, 
freight and delivery arrangements and sales support. Therefore, it was 
thus unnecessary to make any level-of-trade adjustment for comparison 
of EP and home market prices.
    Regarding Kiswire's and Usha's CEP sales, we found that both 
companies make CEP sales to the United States through their affiliates, 
Kiswire Trading Inc. (KTI) and Usha Martin Americas, Inc (UMA), 
respectively. KTI sells to unrelated distributors in the U.S. market. 
UMA sells to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), distributors and 
end-users in the United States while Usha sells to OEMs, distributors, 
end-users and government buyers in the India. For Kiswire's CEP sales, 
KTI provides virtually all the sales functions, such as price 
negotiation, order processing, freight and delivery arrangements and 
sales support. Likewise, for Usha's CEP sales, UMA provides all the 
selling functions, such as warehousing, freight arrangements, 
advertising and product liability insurance. Since in our LOT analysis 
for CEP sales we only consider the selling activities reflected in the 
price after the deduction of the expenses incurred by the U.S. 
affiliate, the record indicates that for Kiswire's and Usha's CEP sales 
there are fewer services performed than for the sales in their home 
markets. Based on this analysis, we found that the level of trade of 
Kiswire's and Usha's home market sales involves substantially more 
selling functions than the level of trade of the CEP sales. Therefore, 
we have determined that Kiswire's and Usha's home market sales are made 
at a different, and more advanced, stage of marketing than the level of 
trade of the CEP sales.
    Accordingly, for both respondents, we determined that a level-of-
trade adjustment may be appropriate for CEP sales. However, Kiswire and 
Usha do not sell wire rope in their respective home markets at the same 
level of trade as that of their U.S. sales. Therefore, because the data 
available do not permit a determination that there is a pattern of 
consistent price differences between sales at different levels of trade 
in the

[[Page 58742]]

comparison markets and because the respondents' home market sales are 
made at a different, and more advanced, stage of marketing than the 
level of trade of the CEP sales, we have made a CEP offset to NV for 
both companies in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. This 
offset is equal to the amount of indirect expenses incurred in the 
comparison market not exceeding the amount of the deductions made from 
the U.S. price in accordance with 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Normal Value for Non-Market Economy Analysis

A. Non-Market Economy Status for the People's Republic of China

    The Department has treated the PRC as a NME country in all past 
antidumping investigations (see, e.g., Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 1121 (January 7, 2000) (Cold-Rolled 
Steel from the PRC). A designation as a NME remains in effect until it 
is revoked by the Department (see section 771(18)(C) of the Act).
    The respondents in this investigation have not requested a 
revocation of the PRC's NME status. We have, therefore, preliminarily 
determined to continue to treat the PRC as a NME.
    When the Department is investigating imports from a NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base NV on the NME producer's 
factors of production, valued in a comparable market economy that is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. The sources of 
individual factor prices are discussed under the Normal Value section, 
below.

B. Separate Rates

    With regard to the PRC case, it is the Department's policy to 
assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in a NME 
country a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The 
eight companies that have submitted section A responses have provided 
the requested company-specific separate rates information and have 
stated that for each company, there is no element of government 
ownership or control. All eight companies have requested a separate 
company-specific rate, including Fasten and Nantong, the two companies 
selected as mandatory respondents.
    In its questionnaire response, Fasten states that it is an 
independent company ``owned by all the people'' and controlled by the 
general assembly of workers and employees. Fasten further claims that 
it does not maintain any corporate relationship with the central, 
provincial, and local government in terms of production, management, 
and operations. Nantong is owned by Nantong Municipal Light Industry 
Bureau (an agency of the local government of Nantong City), the 
Municipal Collective Industrial Association, and by the employees of 
the company. Aside from this tie to the local government, Nantong does 
not maintain any corporate relationship with the central or provincial 
government.
    As stated in Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide), and Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 60 FR 22545 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl 
Alcohol), ownership of a company by ``all the people'' does not require 
the application of a single rate.
    The Department's separate rate test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed 
to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the 
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 
FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 
61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 60 
FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995) (Honey).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under this 
test, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if an 
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate the absence of both (1) de jure 
and (2) de facto governmental control over export activities. See 
Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol.
    Fasten and Nantong have placed on the record a number of documents 
to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Foreign 
Trade Law of the People's Republic of China'' and the ``Law of the 
People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned By the Whole 
People.'' In prior cases, the Department has analyzed these laws and 
found that they establish an absence of de jure control. (See, e.g., 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 54472 (October 24, 1995)). We have no new 
information in this proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this 
determination.
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See, e.g., Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol.
    Fasten and Nantong asserted the following: (1) they established 
their own export prices independently of the government and without the 
approval of a government authority; (2) they negotiate contracts, 
without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) 
they make their own personnel decisions including the selection of 
management; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their export sales, and 
utilize profits according to their business needs.
    We have preliminarily determined that Fasten and Nantong have met 
the criteria for the application of separate rates. We will examine 
this matter further at verification. Each of the other six companies 
that submitted separate rates information, but were not selected as 
respondents in this investigation, have asserted the following: (1) It 
establishes its own export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without 
guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes 
its own personnel decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds from 
export sales and uses profits according to its business needs without 
any restrictions. Additionally, these six companies have stated that

[[Page 58743]]

they do not coordinate or consult with other exporters regarding their 
pricing. This information supports a preliminary finding that there is 
an absence of de facto governmental control of the export functions of 
these companies. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that all 
responding exporters have met the criteria for the application of 
separate rates. For non-responsive producers/exporters, we 
preliminarily determine, as facts available, that they have not met the 
criteria for application of separate rates.

C. Surrogate Country

    With regard to the Chinese case, section 773(c)(4) of the Act 
requires the Department to value the NME producer's factors of 
production, to the extent possible, in one or more market economy 
countries that: (1) Are at a level of economic development comparable 
to that of the NME country; and (2) are significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. The Department initially determined that India, 
Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines and Sri Lanka were the countries most 
comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development (see the 
May 30, 2000, memorandum, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire 
Rope (SWR) from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Nonmarket Economy 
Status and Surrogate Country Selection).
    Because of a lack of the necessary factor price information from 
the other potential surrogate countries that are significant producers 
of comparable products to the subject merchandise, we have relied, 
where possible, on information from India, the source of the most 
complete information from among the potential surrogate countries. 
Accordingly, we have calculated normal value (NV) by applying Indian 
values to the PRC's producers' factors of production for virtually all 
factors. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.

D. Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by the companies in the PRC 
which produced steel wire rope for the exporters that sold steel wire 
rope to the United States during the POI. To calculate NV, the reported 
unit factor quantities were multiplied by publicly available Indian 
values.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. We added to Indian 
surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the reported distance 
from the domestic supplier to the factory where this distance was 
shorter than the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a producer did not report the distance between 
the material supplier and the factory, we used as facts available the 
longest distance reported, i.e., the distance between the PRC seaport 
and the producer's location. For those values not contemporaneous with 
the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices 
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics.
    We valued material inputs and packing materials (i.e., where 
applicable, steel wire rod, acid, zinc, zinc sulfate, paper, wooden 
pallets, and wooden reels) by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number, 
using imports statistics from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 
Trade of India. Where a material input was purchased in a market-
economy currency from a market-economy supplier, we valued such a 
material input at the actual purchase price in accordance with section 
351.408 (c)(1) of the Department's regulations. For a complete analysis 
of surrogate values, see Surrogate Value Memorandum, dated September 
25, 2000.

E. Antidumping Deposit Rate for Those Producers/Exporters That 
Responded Only to the Separate Rates Questionnaire

    For those PRC producers/exporters that responded to our separate 
rates questionnaire but did not respond to the full antidumping 
questionnaire (because they were not selected to respond or because 
they did not submit a voluntary response), we have calculated a 
weighted-average margin based on the rates calculated for those 
producers/exporters that were selected to respond. (See, e.g., Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from 
the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996) 
(``Bicycles from the PRC'')).

F. The People's Republic of China-Wide Rate

    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there are numerous producers/exporters of the subject merchandise in 
the PRC. All exporters were given the opportunity to respond to the 
separate rates questionnaire. We received timely responses from Fasten, 
Haicheng Greatx Industry Co. Ltd., Liaoning Metals & Minerals Import & 
Export Corp., Jiangsu COFCO, Jiangsu Guo Tai, Henan Baoi Wire Rope 
Factory, Nantong and Nantong Wire Rope Company. As explained above, we 
selected Fasten and Nantong as our respondents and have calculated a 
company-specific rate for them. However, based upon our knowledge of 
PRC exporters and the fact that U.S. import statistics show that 
responding companies did not account for all imports into the United 
States from the PRC, we have preliminarily determined that some PRC 
exporters of steel wire rope failed to respond to our questionnaire.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party 
or any other person--(A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority or the Commission under this title, (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of 
the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title, or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the 
administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.''
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse inferences 
may be used when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information. The 
producers/exporters that decided not to respond to the separate rates 
questionnaire failed to act to the best of their ability in this 
investigation. Therefore, the Department has determined that, in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse 
inference is warranted.
    In accordance with our standard practice, as adverse facts 
available, we are assigning to those companies that did not respond to 
the Department's separate rates questionnaire the higher of: (1) The 
highest margin stated in the notice of initiation; or (2) the highest 
margin calculated for any respondent in this investigation (see, e.g., 
Cold Rolled Steel from the PRC, 65 FR 1125). In this case, the adverse 
facts available margin is 118.78 percent, which is the highest margin 
calculated for a respondent in this investigation. The margin for those 
companies that did respond to the Department's section A questionnaire, 
but were not selected as respondents in this proceeding is 56.54 
percent, which is the weighted average of the dumping

[[Page 58744]]

margins for the two mandatory respondents.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    Because of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances 
findings in the cases involving India and the PRC, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of 
steel wire rope from India and the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days prior 
to the date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register. 
We are instructing the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the 
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV 
exceeds the EP or CEP, as indicated in the chart below for imports from 
India and the PRC. These instructions suspending liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
    Because we preliminarily determined that steel wire rope from 
Malaysia is not being sold at LTFV, we are not suspending liquidation 
of such merchandise at this time.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
India:
    Usha Martin Industries, Ltd............................        21.14
    All Others.............................................        21.14
Malaysia:
    Kiswire SDN.BHD........................................         0.18
                                                                     (de
                                                                minimis)
    All Others.............................................         0.18
People's Republic of China:
    Fasten Group Import and Export Co., Ltd................        24.22
    Haicheng Greatx Industry Co. Ltd.*.....................        56.54
    Henan Baoi Wire Rope Factory*..........................        56.54
    Jiangsu COFCO*.........................................        56.54
    Jiangsu Guo Tai*.......................................        56.54
    Liaoning Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.*......        56.54
    Nantong Wire Rope Company*.............................        56.54
    Nantong Zhongde........................................       118.78
    PRC-Wide Rate..........................................      118.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*All Others

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from exporters/factories that are identified 
individually above.

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of the 
proceedings in these investigations in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our sales at less than fair value and critical circumstances 
preliminary determinations. If any of our final antidumping 
determinations is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the 
imports covered by that (those) determination(s) are materially 
injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. The 
deadline for that ITC determination would be the later of 120 days 
after the date of these preliminary determinations or 45 days after the 
date of our final determinations.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification reports. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide the Department with an 
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to more than one steel wire 
rope case, the Department may schedule a single hearing to encompass 
all those cases. 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 within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    If this investigation proceeds normally for the Malaysian and PRC 
cases, we will make our final determinations no later than 75 days 
after the date of the preliminary determinations. As noted above, the 
final determination for the Indian case will be issued 135 days after 
the date of the publication of the preliminary determination.
    These determinations are issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 25, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-25271 Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P