58736 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices

1On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

1The petitioner in this investigation is the

Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and

Specialty Cable Manufacturers.

(March 31, 2000). Accordingly, we will

issue a separate rates questionnaire to

the above-named respondent. If

respondent Green Fresh Foods provides

sufficient evidence that it is not subject

to either de jure or de facto government

control with respect to its exports of

certain preserved mushrooms, this

review will proceed. If, on the other

hand, Green Fresh Foods does not meet

its burden to demonstrate its eligibility

for a separate rate, then Green Fresh

Foods will be deemed to be affiliated

with other companies that exported

during the POI and that did not

establish entitlement to a separate rate.

This review will then be terminated due

to failure of the exporter or producer to

meet the requirements of section

751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.214(iii)(B).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are certain preserved mushrooms

whether imported whole, sliced, diced,

or as stems and pieces. The preserved

mushrooms covered under this review

are the species Agaricus bisporus and

Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved

mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that

have been prepared or preserved by

cleaning, blanching, and sometimes

slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are

then packed and heated in containers

including but not limited to cans or

glass jars in a suitable liquid medium,

including but not limited to water,

brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved

mushrooms may be imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

Included within the scope of this review

are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are

presalted and packed in a heavy salt

solution to provisionally preserve them

for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this

review are the following: (1) All other

species of mushroom, including straw

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’; (3) dried

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified’’ or

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are

prepared or preserved by means of

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain

oil or other additives.1

The merchandise subject to this

review is classifiable under subheadings

2003.1000.27, 2003.1000.31,

2003.1000.37, 2003.1000.43,

2003.1000.47, 2003.1000.53, and

0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’).

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this review is dispositive.

Initiation of Review

In accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a new

shipper review of the antidumping duty

order on certain preserved mushrooms

from the PRC. We intend to issue the

preliminary results of this review within

180 days after initiation.

Antidumping duty proceeding Period to be reviewed

PRC: Certain Preserved Mushrooms, A–570–851: Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. ....................................... 02/01/2000–07/31/2000

Subject to receipt of an adequate

separate rates questionnaire response

from the respondent, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to allow, at the

option of the importer, the posting of a

bond or security in lieu of a cash

deposit for each entry of the

merchandise exported by the abovelisted company until the completion of

the review. This action is in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.214(e) and (j)(3).

Interested parties that need access to

the proprietary information in this new

shipper review should submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and

351.306.

This initiation and this notice are in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR

351.214(d).

Dated: September 22, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–25270 Filed 9–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices 58737

2Section 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 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.

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 recode 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

58738 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices

3We 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.

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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices 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 weightedaverage 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, exfactory, 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

58740 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices

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.

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 weightedaverage 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 weightedaverage 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.

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 belowcost 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 comparisonmarket 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices 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 startingprice 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 CEPoffset 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

58742 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices

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 ColdRolled 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 PartialExtension 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices 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

58744 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Notices

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:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(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

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

The Art Institute of Chicago; Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

D.C.

Docket Number: 00–025. Applicant:

The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL

60603–6110. Instrument: Low Pressure

Conservation Table with Accessories.

Manufacturer: Willard Fine Art

Conservation Equipment, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 65

FR 51797, August 25, 2000.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign