Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1117

determination or 45 days after the date

of our final determination.

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.

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 US Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

In the event that the Department

receives requests for hearings from

parties to several cold-rolled cases, 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, we will make our final

determination no later than 135 days

after the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and

published pursuant to sections 733(d)

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

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–299 Filed 1–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–854]

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

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gideon Katz or Karla Whalen, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1102 or (202) 482–

1391, respectively.

The Applicable Statue

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

Preliminary Determination

We determine preliminarily that

certain cold-rolled flat-rolled carbon

quality steel products (‘‘cold-rolled

steel’’) from the People’s Republic of

China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or is likely to

be, sold in the United States at less than

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in

section 733 of the Act. The estimated

margins are shown in the ‘‘Suspension

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (64 FR 34194, June 25,

1999) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’), the

following events have occurred:

On June 22, 1999, we sent a Section

A questionnaire to the Chinese Ministry

of Foreign Trade and Economic

Cooperation (‘‘MOFTEC’’), the Embassy

of the People’s Republic of China in

Washington, D.C. (‘‘Embassy’’) with

instructions to forward the

questionnaire to all producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise explaining

that these companies must respond by

the due date. We also sent a copy of the

questionnaire to Baoshan Iron and Steel

Corporation, which was specifically

named in the petition. We received no

response from MOFTEC nor the

Embassy, but we received a response

from Shanghai Baosteel Group

Corporation (‘‘Baosteel’’).

On July 23, 1999, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

issued an affirmative preliminary injury

determination in the case (See ITC

Investigations Nos. 701–TA–393–396

and 731TA–829–840). The ITC found

that there is a reasonable indication that

an industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by

reason of imports from the PRC of coldrolled steel. On July 9, 1999, we issued

an antidumping questionnaire, Sections

C–E to MOFTEC and to the Embassy

with instructions to forward the

questionnaire to all producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise and that

these companies must respond by the

due date. We also sent a courtesy copy

of the same questionnaire to Baosteel.

The questionnaire is divided into four

sections. Section A requests general

information concerning a company’s

corporate structure and business

practices, the merchandise under

investigation that it sells, and the sales

of the merchandise in all of its markets.

Section C requests home market sales

listings. Section D requests information

on the factors of production of the

subject merchandise. Section E requests

information on further manufacturing.

On July 1, 6, and 20, 1999, Baosteel

submitted its section A response.

Baosteel, a producer of subject

merchandise, also submitted Section A

on behalf of two wholly-owned

subsidiaries, Baosteel Group

International Trade, Inc. (‘‘Baosteel

ITC’’) and Baosteel America, Inc.

(‘‘BaoMei’’). On August 30, 1999,

Baosteel submitted its response to

sections C, D and E of the questionnaire.

On August 24, 1999, we issued a

Section A supplemental questionnaire

to Baosteel. On September 10, 1999, we

issued Sections C, D, and E

supplemental questionnaire to Baosteel.

Baosteel submitted its Section A

supplemental questionnaire response on

September 14, 1999. Baosteel submitted

its Sections C, D, and E, supplemental

questionnaire response on October 4,

1999.

On September 3, 1999, we requested

publicly-available information for

valuing the factors of production and for

surrogate country selection. Petitioners

had already provided comments on

surrogate values to be used in this

investigation in their petition of June 2,

1999. Respondents provided their

1118 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

comments on this matter on September

15, 1999.

Petitioners submitted comments

regarding Baosteel’s questionnaire

response on August 25, September 8, 10,

and 17, and October 8 and 13, 1999. On

October 15, 1999, Baosteel submitted

additional information regarding its

factors of production. On October 19,

1999, we issued a second supplemental

questionnaire requesting clarification of

certain items and other additional

information. Baosteel submitted its

response to this questionnaire on

November 9 and 16, 1999.

The Department issued additional

supplemental questionnaire on

November 1, 5, and 22, 1999. Baosteel

responded to these questionnaire on

November 16, 30, and December 7,

1999, respectively.

The Department set aside a period for

all interested parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. From July

through October 1999, the Department

received responses from a number of

parties including importers,

respondents, consumers, and

petitioners, aimed at clarifying the

scope of the investigation. See

Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini,

November 1, 1999 (‘‘Scope

Memorandum’’) for a list of all persons

submitting comments and a discussion

of all scope comments. There are several

scope exclusion requests for products

which are currently covered by the

scope of this investigation that are still

under consideration by the Department.

These items are considered to be within

the scope for this preliminary

determination; however, these requests

will be reconsidered for the final

determination. See Scope

Memorandum.

Scope of the Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain cold-rolled

(cold-reduced) flat-rolled carbon-quality

steel products, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal, but whether or not

annealed, painted, varnished, or coated

with plastics or other non-metallic

substances, both in coils, 0.5 inch wide

or wider, (whether or not in

successively superimposed layers and/

or otherwise coiled, such as spirally

oscillated coils), and also in straight

lengths, which, if less than 4.75 mm in

thickness having a width that is 0.5 inch

or greater and that measures at least 10

times the thickness; or, if of a thickness

of 4.75 mm or more, having a width

exceeding 150 mm and measuring at

least twice the thickness. The products

described above may be rectangular,

square, circular or other shape and

include products of either rectangular or

non-rectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)for example, products

which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges.

Specifically included in this scope are

vacuum degassed, fully stabilized

(commonly referred to as interstitial-free

(‘‘IF’’)) steels, high strength low allow

(‘‘HSLA’’) steels, and motor lamination

steels. IF steels are recognized as low

carbon steels with micro-alloying levels

of elements such as titanium and/or

niobium added to stabilize carbon and

nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are

rescognized as steels with microalloying levels of elements such as

chromium, cooper, niobium, titanium,

vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor

lamination steels contain micro-alloying

levels of elements such as silicon and

aluminum.

Steel products included in the scope

of this investigation, regardless of

definitions in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedules of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’), are products in which: (1)

Iron predominates, by weight, over each

of the other contained elements; (2) the

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by

weight, and; (3) none of the elements

listed below exceeds the quantity by

weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or

2.25 percent of silicon, or

1.00 percent of copper, or

0.50 percent of aluminum, or

1.25 percent of chromium, or

0.30 percent of cobalt, or

0.40 percent of lead, or

1.25 percent of nickel, or

0.30 percent of tungsten, or

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

0.10 percent of niobium (also called

columbium), or

0.15 percent of vanadium, or

0.15 percent of zirconium.

All products that meet the written

physical description, and in which the

chemistry quantities do not exceed any

one of the noted element levels listed

above, are within the scope of this

investigation unless specifically

excluded. The following products, by

way of example, are outside and/or

specifically excluded from the scope of

this investigation:

• SAE grades (formerly also called AISI

grades) above 2300;

• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the

HTSUS;

• Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS;

• Silico-manganese steel, as defined in

the HTSUS;

• Silicon-electrical steels, as defined in

the HTSUS, that are grain-oriented;

• Silicon-electrical steels, as defined in

the HTSUS, that are not grainoriented and that have a silicon

level exceeding 2.25 percent;

• All products (proprietary or

otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM

specification (sample specifications:

ASTM A506, A507);

• Silicon-electrical steels, as defined in

the HTSUS, that are not grainoriented and that have a silicon

level less than 2.25 percent, and

(a) fully-processed, with a core loss of

less than 0.14 watts/pound per mil

(.001 inches), or

(b) semi-processed, with core loss of

less than 0.085 watts/pound per mil

(.001 inches);

• Certain shadow mask steel, which is

aluminum killed cold-rolled steel

coil that is open coil annealed, has

an ultra-flat, isotropic surface, and

which meets the following

characteristics:

Thickness: 0.001 to 0.010 inches

Width: 15 to 32 inches

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element ................................................................................................................................................................................................ C

Weight % ............................................................................................................................................................................................. <0.002

• Certain flapper valve steel, which is hardened and tempered, surface polished, and which meets the following characteristics:

Thickness: ≤1.0 mm

Width: ≤152.4 mm

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element ....................................................................................... C Si Mn P S

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1119

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION—Continued

Weight % ..................................................................................... 0.90–1.05 0.15–0.35 0.30–0.50 ≤0.03 ≤0.006

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Tensile Strength ....................................................................................... ≥162 Kgf/mm2

Hardness .................................................................................................. ≥475 Vickers hardness number

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Flatness .................................................................................................... <0.2% of nominal strip width

Microstructure: Completely free from decarburization. Carbides are spheroidal and fine within 1% to 4% (area percentage) and are undissolved in the uniform tempered martensite.

NON-METALLIC INCLUSION

Area

Percentage

Sulfide Inclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................... ≤0.04%

Oxide Inclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................... ≤0.05%

Compressive Stress: 10 to 40 Kgf/mm2

SURFACE ROUGHNESS

Thickness (mm) Roughness

(μm)

t≤0.209 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Rz≤0.5

0.209<t≤0.310 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Rz≤0.6

0.310<t≤0.440 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Rz≤0.7

0.440<t≤0.560 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Rz≤0.8

0.560<t ................................................................................................................................................................................................. Rz≤1.0

• Certain ultra thin guage steel strip, which meets the following characteristics:

Thickness: ≤ 0.100 mm ±7%

Width: 100 to 600 mm

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Weight % ........................................................... ≤ 0.07 0.2–0.5 ≤ 0.05 ≤ 0.05 ≤ 0.07 Balance

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Hardness .................................................................................................. Full Hard (Hv 180 minimum)

Total Elongation ........................................................................................ <3%

Tensile Strength ....................................................................................... 600 to 850 N/mm2

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Surface Finish ........................................................................................... ≤ 0.3 micron

Camber (in 2.0 m) .................................................................................... < 3.0 mm

Flatness (in 2.0 m) ................................................................................... ≤ 0.5 mm

Edge Burr ................................................................................................. < 0.01 mm greater than thickness

Coil Set (in 1.0 m) .................................................................................... < 75.0 mm

• Certain silicon steel, which meets the following characteristics:

Thickness: 0.024 inches +/-.0015 inches

Width: 33 to 45.5 inches

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element ............................................................. C Mn P S Si Al

Min. Weight % ................................................... 0.65

Max. Weight % .................................................. 0.004 0.4 0.09 0.009 0.4

1120 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Hardness .................................................................................................. B 60–75 (AIM 65)

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Finish ........................................................................................................ Smooth (30–60 microinches)

Gamma Crown (in 5 inches) .................................................................... 0.0005 inches, start measuring 1⁄4 inch from slit edge

Flatness .................................................................................................... 20I–UNIT max

Coating ..................................................................................................... C3A–08A max (A2 coating acceptable)

Camber (in any 10 feet) ........................................................................... 1⁄16 inch

Coil Size I.D. ............................................................................................. 20 inches

MAGNETIC PROPERTIES

Core Loss (1.5T/60 Hz) NAAS ................................................................. 3.8 Watts/Pound max

Permeability (1.5T/60 Hz) NAAS .............................................................. 1700 gauss/oersted typical 1500 minimum

• Certain aperture mask steel, which has an ultra-flat surface flatness and which meets the followingcharacteristics:

Thickness: 0.025 to 0.245 mm

Width: 381–1000 mm

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element ............................................................................................................................................ C N Al

Weight % .......................................................................................................................................... <0.01 0.004 to

0.007

<0.007

• Certain tin mill black plate, annealed and temper-rolled, continuously cast, which meets the following characteristics:

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element .......... C Mn P S Si Al As Cu B N

Min. Weight % 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.003

Max. Weight % 0.06 0.40 0.02 0.023 (Aiming

0.018 Max.)

0.03 0.08

(Aiming

0.05)

0.02 0.08 0.008 (Aiming

0.005)

Non-metallic Inclusions: Examination with the S.E.M. shall not reveal individual oxides >1 micro (0.000039 inches)

and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns (0.000197 inches) in length.

Surface Treatment as follows:

The surface finish shall be free of defects (digs, scratches, pits, gouges, slivers, etc.) and suitable for nickel plating.

SURFACE FINISH

Roughness, RA Microinches (Micrometers)

Aim Min. Max.

Extra Bright ....................................................................................................................................... 5 (0.1) 0 (0) 7 (0.2)

• Certain full hard tin mill black plate, continuously cast which meets the following characteristics:

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element ........... C Mn P S Si A1 As Cu B N

Min.Weight % .. 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.003

Max. Weight % 0.06 0.40 0.02 0.023 (Aiming

0.018 Max.)

0.03 0.08 (Aiming

0.05)

0.02 0.08 0.008 (Aiming

0.005)

Non-metallic Inclusions: Examination with the S.E.M. shall not reveal individual oxides > 1 micron (0.00039 inches)

and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns (0.00197 inches) in length.

Surface Treatment as follows:

The surface finish shall be free of defects (digs, scratches, pits, gouges, slivers, etc.) and suitable for nickel plating.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1121

SURFACE FINISH

Roughness, RA Microinches (Micrometers)

Aim Min. Max.

Stone Finish ..................................................................................................................................... 16 (0.4) 8 (0.2) 24 (0.6)

• Certain ‘‘blued steel’’ coil (also know as ‘‘steamed blue steel’’ or ‘‘blue oxide’’) with a thickness and size of 0.38

mm x 940 mm x coil, with a bright finish;

• Certain cold-rolled steel sheet, which meets the following characteristics:

Thickness (nominal): ≤ 0.019 inches

Width: 35 to 60 inches

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element ............................................................................................................................................ C O B

Max. Weight % ................................................................................................................................. 0.004

Min. Weight % .................................................................................................................................. ...................... 0.010 0.012

• Certain band saw steel, which meets the following characteristics:

Thickness: ≤ 1.31 mm

Width: ≤ 80 mm

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element ................................... C Si Mn P S Cr Ni

Weight % ................................ 1.2 to 1.3 0.15 to 0.35 0.20 to 0.35 ≤0.03 ≤0.007 0.3 to 0.5 ≤0.25

Other properties:

Carbide: fully spheroidized having

>80% of carbides, which are ≤0.003

mm and uniformed dispersed

Surface finish: bright finish free from

pits, scratches, rust, cracks, or

seams

Smooth edges

Edge camber (in each 300 mm of

length): ≤7 mm arc height

Cross bow (per inch of width): 0.015

mm max.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is typically classified in

the HTSUS at subheading:

7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030,

7209.16.0060, 7209.16,0090,

7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060,

7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530,

7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550,

7209.18.6000. 7209.25.0000,

7209.26.0000, 7209.28.0000,

7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,

7210.90.9000, 7211.23.1500,

7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000,

7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030,

7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,

7212.50.0000, 7225.19.0000,

7225.50.6000, 7225.50.7000,

7225.50.8010, 7225.50.8085,

7225.99.0090, 7226.19.1000,

7226.19.9000, 7226.92.5000,

7226.92.7050, and 7226.99.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheading are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs Service (‘‘U.S. Customs’’)

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Period of Investigation

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

October 1, 1998, through March 31,

1999.

Non-Market-Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the PRC

as a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’)

country in all past antidumping

investigations (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic

of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31,

1998) (‘‘Mushrooms’’)). A designation as

an NME remains in effect until it is

revoked by the Department (See section

771(18)(C) of the Act). The respondents

have not challenged such treatment.

Therefore, in accordance with section

771(18)(C) of the Act, we will continue

to treat the PRC as an NME country.

Surrogate Country

When investigating imports from an

NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the

Act directs the Department in most

circumstances to base normal value

(‘‘NV’’) on the NME producer’s factors

of production, valued in a surrogate

market economy country or countries

considered to be appropriate by the

Department. In accordance with section

773(c)(4), the Department, in valuing the

factors of production, shall utilize, to

the extent possible, the prices or costs

of factors of production in one or more

market economy countries that are

comparable in terms of economic

development to the NME country and

are significant producers of comparable

merchandise. The sources of the

surrogate factor values are discussed

under the NV section below.

The Department has determined that

India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Egypt,

Indonesia, and the Philippines are

countries comparable to the PRC in

terms of economic development. See

Memorandum from Jeff May to Edward

Yang, dated June 24, 1999. Customarily,

we select an appropriate surrogate based

on the availability and reliability of data

from these countries. For PRC cases, the

primary surrogate has usually been

India if it is a significant producer of

comparable merchandise. In this case,

we have found that India as well as

Indonesia are significant producers of

comparable merchandise.

We used India as the primary

surrogate country and, accordingly, we

have calculated NV using Indian prices

to value the PRC producer’s factors of

production, when available and

appropriate. See Surrogate Country

Selection Memorandum to The File

from James Doyle, Program Manager,

dated December 28, 1999, (‘‘Surrogate

Country Memorandum’’). We have

obtained and relied upon publiclyavailable information wherever

possible. For certain factors, we were

unable to locate an appropriate

surrogate value from any of the

1122 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

comparable countries identified above.

Therefore, we selected a U.S. value as

the most appropriate surrogate. See

Factor Valuation Memorandum to The

File from Gideon Katz and Karla

Whalen, dated December 28, 1999,

(‘‘Valuation Memorandum’’).

Separate Rates

Baosteel has requested a separate

company-specific rate. In its

questionnaire response, Baosteel states

that it is an independent legal entity.

Baosteel reports that it is an

independent trading company ‘‘owned

by all the people’’ and is solely

responsible for its profits and losses.

Baosteel further claims that it does not

have any corporate relationship with

any level of the PRC Government,

except for its mandatory registration

with the government, which is required

of all business entities. As stated in

Final Determination of Sales at LessThan-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. Accordingly,

Baosteel is eligible for consideration for

a separate 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) (‘‘Sparklers’’) 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.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

Baosteel has placed on the

administrative record two documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control.

The first document, titled ‘‘Law of the

People’s Republic of China on Industrial

Enterprises Owned By the Whole

People,’’ was adopted on April 13, 1988.

(‘‘The Industrial Enterprises Law’’). The

Industrial Enterprises Law provides that

enterprises owned by ‘‘the whole

people’’ shall make their own

management decisions, be responsible

for their own profits and losses, choose

their own suppliers, and purchase their

own goods and materials. This law has

been analyzed by the Department in

past cases and has been found to

sufficiently establish an absence of de

jure control of companies ‘‘owned by

the whole people,’’ such as Baosteel.

See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer

Slides with Rollers from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 54472, 55474

(October 24, 1995); Honey, 60 FR at

14726; and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at

22544.

The second document submitted by

Baosteel consists of excerpts from

‘‘Regulations for Transformation of

Operational Mechanism of State-Owned

Industrial Enterprises’’ (‘‘Regulations’’),

issued on December 31, 1992, by the

Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations

and Trade of the People’s Republic of

China. These Regulations gave stateowned enterprises the right to establish

‘‘production, management, and

operational policies,’’ and the right to

set prices, sell products, purchase

production inputs, make investment

decisions, and dispose of profits and

assets. These rights apply specifically to

an enterprise’s import and export

activities (Article XII). The Department

determined in the past that the

existence of these Regulations supports

finding that a PRC company is not

subject to de jure governmental control.

See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 56045

(November 6, 1995) and Chrome-Plated

Lug Nuts from the People’s Republic of

China: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 31719 (June 10, 1998).

In sum, in prior cases, the Department

has analyzed the Chinese laws and

Regulations placed on the record in this

case, and found that they establish an

absence of de jure control. We have no

new information in this proceeding

which would cause us to reconsider

such a determination.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

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 authority; (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.

Baosteel asserted the following: (1) It

establishes its own export prices

independently of the government and

without the approval of a government

authority; (2) it negotiates contracts,

without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) it makes its own personnel decisions

including the selection of management;

and (4) it retains the proceeds of its

export sales, uses profits according to its

business needs, and has the authority to

obtain loans. We have found no

indication from Baosteel’s business

licenses that the issuing authority

imposes any type of restriction on its

business. The business license simply

establishes a legal name for the

enterprise, provides the address of the

enterprise, identifies the legal

representative of the enterprise, reports

the amount of registered capital of the

enterprise, identifies the type of the

enterprise, and establishes the

authorized scope of business for the

enterprise. In addition, Baosteel stated

that the subject merchandise is not on

any government list dealing with export

provisions or licensing.

Consequently, we preliminarily

determine that Baosteel has met the

criteria for the application of separate

rates. We will examine this matter

further at verification. For nonresponsive exporters, we preliminarily

determine, as facts available, that they

have not met the criteria for application

of separate rates.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1123

Use of Facts Available

Baosteel

In calculating the factors of

production, the Department normally

considers the factors from all

production facilities of the respondent

company that are involved in the

production of the subject merchandise.

Therefore, the Department’s

questionnaire requires that the

respondent company provide

information regarding the weightedaverage factors of production across all

of the company’s plants that produce

the subject merchandise, not just the

factors of production from a single

plant. This methodology ensures that

the Department’s calculations are as

accurate as possible.

In this case, as discussed in the Case

History section, above, the Department

issued several questionnaires to

Baosteel. In response to the

Department’s inquiry into Baosteel’s

affiliates and factors of production,

Baosteel indicated that ‘‘Baosteel’s

wholly-owned subsidiaries, Baosteel

Group International Trade Inc.

(‘‘Baosteel ITC’’) and Baosteel America

Inc. (‘‘BaoMei’’), are involved in the

exportation of the subject merchandise.’’

Baosteel stated that of all the

subsidiaries listed in an exhibit to its

section A response, ‘‘no other

subsidiaries involved [sic] in the

manufacture, sales or research of the

subject merchandise, except for Baosteel

ITC and BaoMei. These two companies

are involved in sales of the product

* * *’’ Baosteel further asserted in its

section A supplemental response that

‘‘[t]here is no other manufacturing plant,

sales office, research and development

facility, and administrative office

involved in the manufacture and sale of

the subject merchandise other than

Baosteel ITC, Bao Mei and Baosteel

headquarter’s [sic] steel mill. Baosteel

headquarter’s [sic] steel mill

manufactures the subject merchandise,

Baosteel ITC handles all internal

processing, arranges for shipments, and

negotiates Letters of Credit; and Bao Mei

acts as the sales office in the U.S.A.’’ In

response to the Department’s

supplemental questions requesting a list

of all plants, offices, facilities, branches

and affiliates involved in the

manufacture and sale of subject

merchandise, Baosteel stated that

‘‘* * * Baosteel ITC and Bao Mei are

wholly owned subsidiaries of Baosteel

and sold the subject merchandise under

investigation.’’ Baosteel further asserted

that ‘‘[o]nly Baosteel’s headquarter[s]

plant produced the subject merchandise

during the POI. No other plant was

involved in the production of the

subject merchandise. Baosteel, as

requested, reported the factors of

production and output of the plant

which produced the subject

merchandise.’’

We find that Baosteel’s responses that

only its headquarters plant produces

subject merchandise do not correspond

with the public and proprietary

information available on the record. See

Memorandum to the File from Juanita

Chen regarding public articles, dated

October 26, 1999 (‘‘Public Sources

Memorandum’’). According to public

information, on November 17, 1998,

Baoshan Iron & Steel (Group)

Corporation was reorganized into

Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation,

absorbing Shanghai Metallurgical

Holding (Group) Corporation (‘‘SMHC’’)

and Meishan Iron & Steel (Group)

Corporation. SMHC comprises ten steel

mills and a total of 30 plants, including

Shanghai Nos 1, 3, 5 and 10 steel works.

The International Iron and Steel

Institute lists SMHC’s crude steel output

for 1998 at 6.6 million tons. It is also

clear that Shanghai Pudong Iron & Steel

(Group) Co. Ltd. (‘‘Pudong’’), formerly

known as Shanghai No. 3 Iron & Steel

Works, is a producer of carbon steel

cold-rolled sheets. See Iron and Steel

Works of the World, Volume 13, page

82. In addition to this information,

Baosteel’s own website states that:

. . . with the approval of the State Council

and by changing its registered company

name, the former Baoshan Iron & Steel

(Group) Corporation was reorganized into

Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation,

absorbing Shanghai Metallurgical Holding

(Group) Corporation (‘‘SMHC’’) and Meishan

Iron & Steel (Group) (‘‘Meishan’’) Corporation

on November 17, 1998. With RMB 45.8

billion yuan in registered funds and RMB

70.466 billion yuan in net assets, the newly

established corporation is the largest iron and

steel conglomerate in China at present. See

http://www.bstl.sh.cn/pagele/a001.htm

(visited December 20, 1999).

The Department also notes that,

subsequent to the Department’s further

inquiries, Baosteel edited the

information it provided in its response

concerning its list of affiliates.

Specifically, in its November 9, 1999,

supplemental response, Baosteel

excluded certain companies previously

submitted as subsidiaries in its

September 14, 1999, Section A

supplemental response, including

Baosteel Shanghai Pu Steel Mill,

Baosteel Group Shanghai Numbers,

One, Two, Three, and Five Steel Mills,

and Baosteel Group Shanghai Mei Shan

Company, Ltd.

Additionally, there is some evidence

indicating that Wuhan Iron and Steel

Works (‘‘Wuhan’’), a producer of carbon

steel cold-rolled uncoated sheet/coil,

may have also merged with Baosteel in

1998. See Public Sources Memorandum.

We note, however, that Baosteel’s

responses fail to provide any factors of

production information from either the

Pudong or the Wuhan facilities, despite

the Department’s specific requests in its

supplemental questionnaires.

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

provides that, if an interested party

withholds information that has been

requested by the administering

authority, the Department shall, subject

to section 782(d), apply facts otherwise

available. In this case, as described

above, the publicly-available

information indicates that, in addition

to the Baosteel headquarters plant, there

exist other Baosteel facilities that

produce cold-rolled, flat-rolled carbon

quality steel. Accordingly, in light of the

evidence that both Pudong and Wuhan

produced subject merchandise during

the POI, and that Baosteel merged with

Pudong and may have merged with

Wuhan, the Department is concerned

that Baosteel did not provide any

information concerning these facilities.

As explained above, to properly conduct

this investigation, it is essential that the

Department has at its disposal

information regarding the weightedaverage factors of production across all

of a company’s plants that produce

subject merchandise, not just the factors

of production from a single plant. Using

factors of production for only one

company plant may distort the actual

factors of production for the entire

company.

In response to the Department’s

questions on this issue, Baosteel’s

December 7, 1999 supplemental

questionnaire response on page two

asserted that ‘‘The Department should

note that the merger plan was

announced on November 17, 1998, but,

the registration did not occur until

August 1999.’’ Baosteel’s focus on

registration of the merger leads to its

conclusion on page three that ‘‘It is

Baosteel’s position that Pudong did not

legally merge with Baosteel until August

10, 1999, that is, well after the POI.’’ In

addition to taking issue with the timing

of the merger, Baosteel also challenged

its relevance by contending that the

companies with which it merged do not

produce the merchandise under

investigation, and therefore the

provision of factors is unnecessary.

Specifically, Baosteel’s December 7,

1999, supplemental questionnaire

response on page three notes that

‘‘Pudong has previously certified that it

did not produce the subject

merchandise during the POI, and does

not produce this subject merchandise.’’

1124 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

In addition, Baosteel provided a

certification in Exhibit S5–3, stamped

by Shanghai Pusteel (Group) Company

Ltd. which it translated as follows:

‘‘This is to certify that we do not

produce the cold-rolled carbon type

steel products.’’

Regarding the timing of the merger,

the Department first notes that

Baosteel’s responses have evolved, from

first listing the merged entities among

Baosteel’s subsidiaries, to the most

recent focus on registration of the

merged entity as the critical event. In

addition, these evolved statements

remain at variance with several public

documents, in particular public

statements originating from Baosteel

itself. The Department finds, based on

the evidence as a whole, that it is

appropriate to treat the companies as

having merged during the POI. Baosteel

has failed to adequately support its

argument that registration is the critical

merger event because it did not

adequately explain the merger process.

Specifically, Question 4 of the

Department’s November 22, 1999,

supplemental questionnaire requested

Baosteel to ‘‘provide a complete

explanation of the actual merger

process’’ and to ‘‘clearly identify all

legal documentation and proceedings

which must occur for the merger to be

officially legal according to Baosteel.’’

Also, the Department requested Baosteel

to ‘‘detail the timing of each event.’’

Instead, Baosteel focused almost

exclusively on registration, providing no

useful information regarding the process

as a whole, despite repeated attempts by

the Department to get this information

on the record (see October 19 and

November 5, 1999, supplemental

questionnaires). As a result, Baosteel

has prevented the Department from

fully understanding the merger process

as a whole so that we could assess the

function and effect of registration.

Absent such information, the

Department finds no basis to disregard

the company’s public statements which

indicate that the mergers were

completed during the POI.

Baosteel’s insistence that none of the

merged entities produced subject

merchandise is similarly unpersuasive.

In its November 30, 1999 supplemental

questionnaire, the Department explicitly

stated that Baosteel should report

factors of production for Pudong ‘‘if

Pudong manufactures and merchandise

which falls within the scope of the

investigation.’’ Thus, production of the

subject merchandise was the sole

criterion for reporting factors of

production. However, Baosteel’s

response indicates that it added an

additional criterion for determining

whether to report factors of production,

i.e., whether an affiliated producer

exported subject merchandise to the

United Stated during the POI. Therefore,

Baosteel’s responses have not answered

the specific question whether any of the

merged facilities manufacture the

products described in the Scope of the

Investigation section above.

Further, while Pudong’s certification

appears to have been written in

response to a request from Baosteel

regarding specific parameters, those

parameters were not provided to the

Department. Because the Department

does not know the set of products to

which Pudong is certifying, the

certification’s analytical usefulness is

limited, especially since it directly

contradicts recent sources of

information such as Iron and Steel

Works of the World, Volume 13 (1999),

page 82, which clearly lists Shanghai

Pudong as a 1999 producer of carbon

steel cold-rolled sheets.

Thus, given that Baosteel appears to

have withheld this information despite

the Department’s requests, pursuant to

section 776(a)(2)(A), we preliminarily

determine that the application of facts

otherwise available is warranted.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information, the Department may, in

selecting the facts otherwise available,

use an inference that is adverse to the

interests of that party. In this case, we

find that although Baosteel provided the

Department with information regarding

its headquarters plant, Baosteel has not

cooperated to the best of its ability

because it failed to fully support the

information it submitted and provided

conflicting information on the record

regarding this issue.

Accordingly, we are applying adverse

partial facts available to account for the

portion of the overall Baosteel Group’s

margin which might be attributed to

SMHC. Given that the public

information is not conclusive with

regard to Wuhan, we have not included

this plant in our partial facts available

calculation. We used the relation

between the steelmaking capacity of the

Baosteel headquarters plant and the

capacity of SMHC to weight-average the

calculated and partial facts available

margin to arrive at an overall margin.

We weight-averaged the margin

calculated for Baosteel’s headquarters

plant with the highest petition margin,

23.72% (to account for SMHC), to arrive

at the preliminary margin. See Public

Sources Memorandum. We note,

however, that we issued an additional

supplemental questionnaire on this

topic and therefore, intend to examine

this issue in more detail for the final

determination.

PRC-Wide Rate

Information on the record of this

investigation indicates that there may be

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise in the PRC, in addition to

the company participating in this

investigation, as noted in the petition

and confirmed by the Department’s own

analysis of the import statistics in

comparison to Baosteel’s reported U.S.

sales. Also, U.S. import statistics

indicate that the total quantity of U.S.

imports of cold-rolled steel from the

PRC is greater than the total quantity of

cold-rolled steel exported to the U.S. as

reported by Baosteel. See Corroboration

Memorandum to Edward Yang, Office

Director from Robert Bolling and Karla

Whalen, dated December 28, 1999

(‘‘Corroboration Memorandum’’). Given

this discrepancy, it appears that not all

PRC exporters of cold-rolled steel

responded to our questionnaire.

Accordingly, we are applying a single

antidumping deposit rate—the PRCwide rate—to all exporters in the PRC,

other than Baosteel, as specifically

identified below under the ‘‘Suspension

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice,

based on our presumption that the

export activities of the companies that

failed to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire are controlled by the PRC

government (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less-ThanFair-Value: Bicycles from the People’s

Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April

30, 1996) (‘‘Bicycles’’).

As explained below, this PRC-wide

antidumping rate is based on adverse

facts available. 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.

In this case, we found that there are PRC

producers/exporters who failed to

respond to our questionnaire, thereby

withholding information necessary for

reaching the applicable determination

within the meaning of section

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Moreover, by

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1125

refusing to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire, these producers/

exporters significantly impeded this

investigation within the meaning of

section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Thus, in

making our preliminary determination,

we are required to use facts otherwise

available.

In addition, section 776(b) of the Act

provides that, if the Department finds

that an interested party ‘‘failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information,’’ the Department may use

information that is adverse to the

interest of that party as the facts

otherwise available. The exporters that

decided not to respond in any form to

the Department’s questionnaire failed to

act to the best of their ability in this

investigation. Thus, the Department has

determined that, in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available, an

adverse inference is warranted. As

adverse facts available, we are assigning

the highest margin in the petition, 23.72

percent, which is higher than the

calculated margin. Further, absent a

response, we must presume government

control of these and all other PRC

companies for which we cannot make a

separate rate determination.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides

that, when the Department relies upon

‘‘secondary information’’ in using facts

otherwise available, such as the petition

rates, the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that information

from independent sources reasonably at

the Department’s disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

103–316 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’), states that

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that

the information used has probative

value. See SAA at 870.

The petitioner’s methodology for

calculating export price (‘‘EP’’) and NV

is discussed in the Notice of Initiation.

The information contained in the

petition demonstrates that petitioners

calculated EP based on average unit

values (‘‘AUVs’’), which rely, in turn, on

U.S. import statistics. Petitioners used

POI data for HTSUS numbers

7209.16.00.90 and 7209.17.00.90. The

AUVs were calculated by dividing the

free-along-side values by net tons.

Petitioners made no deductions from

these calculated AUVs. The information

in the petition with respect to NV is

based on factors of production for one

petitioner through the hot-rolled

production stage, and on another

petitioner’s factors of production for the

additional processing stages necessary

to produce cold-rolled steel. Petitioners

valued the factors of production, where

possible, based on reasonably available,

public surrogate country data.

Petitioners used India as their surrogate

country for valuation of the factors of

production.

To corroborate the margins we are

using as adverse facts available, we reexamined evidence supporting the

petition calculation. In accordance with

section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we examined the key

elements of the U.S. price and NV

calculations on which the petition

margin was based and compared the

sources used in the petition to publiclyavailable information, where available.

We compared petitioner factor usage

data to the actual factor usage data of

Baosteel for the most significant factor

inputs, and we find this information to

be sufficiently corroborated as defined

in the statute. Furthermore, because the

other information in the petition is from

public sources contemporaneous with

the POI, we find, for the purpose of the

preliminary determination, that the

margins in the petition are sufficiently

corroborated. See Corroboration

Memorandum.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of coldrolled carbon steel from the PRC to the

United States were made at LTFV, we

compared the EP to the NV, as specified

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice.

Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, we used EP because the subject

merchandise was sold directly to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States prior to importation and because

constructed export price methodology

was not otherwise indicated. In

accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to the NVs. See Valuation

Memorandum. We calculated EP based

on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for loading labor.

Normal Value

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on the

value of the factors of production

reported by Baosteel. We used factors of

production, reported by Baosteel, for

materials, energy, labor, by-products,

and packing. We made adjustments to

the usage rates for these factors as noted

below. In accordance with our standard

practice, where an input is sourced from

a market economy and paid for in

market economy currency, the

Department employs the actual price

paid for the input to calculate the

factors-based NV. See Lasko Metal

Products v. United States, 437 F. 3d

1442 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (‘‘Lasko’’).

Baosteel reported that some of its inputs

were sourced from market economies

and paid for in market economy

currency. However, we determined not

to use the prices reported by Baosteel

for coking coal because the purchase

was insignificant in comparison to the

domestic purchases. Therefore, we

disregarded Baosteel’s coking coal

information and instead used publiclyavailable information from India. See

Valuation Memorandum.

Baosteel identified a number of byproducts which it claimed are recycled

in the production process and/or sold.

However, the response was unclear as to

how much of these various inputs are

entered into the production process or

sold. Therefore, the Department has

only offset the cost of production by the

amount of a by-product where

Baosteel’s response indicated that it was

sold and not re-entered into the

production process. We intend to

examine this issue more closely at

verification. See Valuation

Memorandum.

Finally, we made an adjustment to the

reported energy usage factor. Because

we could not clearly determine what

portion of the self-produced energy

factor went into direct steelmaking, we

have estimated this usage rate based on

an Indian steel producer’s self-produced

energy costs.

Factor Valuations

The selection of the surrogate values

was based on the quality and

contemporaneity of the data. Where

possible, we attempted to value material

inputs on the basis of tax-exclusive

domestic prices. We used import prices

to value factors. We removed from the

imports data import prices from

countries which the Department has

previously determined to be NMEs. For

those values not contemporaneous with

the POL, we adjusted for inflation using

wholesale price indices (‘‘WPI’’),

published in the International Monetary

Fund’s International Financial

Statistics. For a complete analysis of

surrogate values, see Valuation

Memorandum.

For most raw material and energy

surrogate values, we used values as

reported in the Monthly Statistics of

Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II—Imports,

Directorate General of Commercial

Intelligence & Statistics, Ministry of

Commerce, Government of India,

Calcutta. The price information from

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of

India represents cumulative values for

the period of April 1997 through March

1126 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

1998. For each input value obtained

from the above referenced publication,

we used the average value per kilogram

for that input from market economics.

Import statistics from NMEs were

excluded in the calculation of the

average value. Given that the data from

this publication is not contemporaneous

with the POI, we adjusted material

values for inflation by using the WPI

rate for India. We then converted each

of the raw material inputs to U.S.

dollars using an exchange rate

conversion factor.

For certain other factors, we used

values as reported in the United Nations

Commodity Trade Statistics for India in

1997. We converted these values as

appropriate. See Valuation

Memorandum.

The Department determined that the

only surrogate value for slag from India

was unreliable. According to New Steel,

February 1997, pages 24 and 44, slag has

a relatively low value compared to the

price of steel. Because the Indian value

for slag was unusually high compared to

the price of the subject merchandise, the

Department has preliminarily used

values for slag from the U.S. Geological

Survey, Minerals, Commodities

Summaries from 1998.

Baosteel reported that three types of

iron ore were purchased from market

economy suppliers, namely, iron ore

fines, iron ore lumps, and iron ore

pellets. The evidence provided by

Baosteel indicated that its market

economy purchases of iron ore were

significant. See Section B of the October

4, 1999 submission, Exhibit SD–5. The

Department has determined to use the

FOB Baosteel prices as reported, in

accordance with Lasko. However, for

that portion of the three iron-ore type

shipments which were unloaded at an

intermediary port, we have added an

unloading and a loading expense, as

well as Indian surrogate river transport

freight expense, given that the data

indicates that the prices reported did

not account for these additional

expenses. We based the freight expense

on the simple average of three surrogate

values provided by Baosteel. We then

added the freight and shipment

expenses to a weighted-average FOB

Baosteel price to account for materials

delivered at an intermediary port.

Finally, we weight-averaged the total

value of the iron ore delivered directly

to Baosteel with the total value of the

iron ore unloaded at an intermediately

port to derive a final market-based iron

ore price per category of iron ore

reported. For the ‘‘other’’ iron ore input

category reported by Baosteel, we used

a surrogate value as reported in the

United Nations Commodity Trade

Statistics for India in 1997 because this

was not purchased via market economy

sources. We have also added a

proportional unloading and loading

charge and transportation cost as

appropriate using the above

methodology. See Valuation

Memorandum.

For labor, we used the Chinese

regression-based wage rate at Import

Administration’s homepage, Import

Library, Expected Wages of Selected

NMW Countries, revised in May 1999.

Because of the variability of wage rates

in countries with similar per capita

gross domestic prices, section

351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s

regulations requires us to use a

regression-based wage-rate. The source

of this wage-rate data on Import

Administration’s homepage is found in

the 1998 Year Book of Labour Statistics,

International Labour Office (Geneva:

1998), Chapter 5B: Wages in

Manufacturing.

For overhead, profit and SG&A

expenses, we used averaged information

reported in publicly available financial

reports to two Indian steel producers.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify the information used

in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

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

exceeds the export price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation (including Baosteel

Group International Trade,

Inc.) ....................................... 8.84

China-wide Rate * ..................... 23.72

* The China-wide rate applies to all entries

of the subject merchandise except for entries

from exporters that are identified individually

above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether the domestic

industry in the United States is

materially injured, or threatened with

material injury, by reason of imports, or

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for

importation, of the subject merchandise.

Postponement of Final Determination

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 November 8, 1999, Baosteel

requested that, in the event of an

affirmative preliminary determination

in this investigation, the Department

postpone its final determination until

not later than 135 days after the date of

the publication of an affirmative

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. Baosteel 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 until not later than 135

days after the date of the publication of

the preliminary determination.

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1127

1Petitioners in this case are Bethlehem Steel

Corporation, Gulf States Steel, Inc., Ispat Inland

Inc., LTV Steel Company Inc., National Steel

Company, Steel Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group,

a unit of USX Corporation, Weirton Steel

Corporation, United Steelworkers of America, and

Independent Steelworkers Union (collectively,

petitioners).

2Based on our analysis of Turkey’s consumer

price and wholesale price indices, we determined

that the Turkish economy was experiencing high

inflation during the POI (see 1999 issues of the

International Monetary Fund’s International

Financial Statistics). ‘‘High inflation’’ is a term used

to refer to a high rate of increase in price levels.

Investigations and reviews involving exports from

countries with highly inflationary economies

require special methodologies for comparing prices

and calculating CV and COP. Generally, a 25

percent inflation rate has been used as a guide for

assessing the impact of inflation on AD

Continued

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

several cold-rolled cases, 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 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, we will make our final

determination no later than 135 days

after the date of publication of this

preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–300 Filed 1–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–489–808]

Notice of Preliminary Determinations

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled

Carbon-Quality Steel Products from

Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Ranado, Stephanie Arthur or

Robert James at (202) 482–3518, (202)

482–6312 or (202) 482–5222,

respectively; Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group

III, Import Administration, 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 Tariff

Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to

Department of Commerce (Department)

regulations refer to the regulations

codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1,

1999).

Preliminary Determinations

We preliminarily determine that coldrolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel

products (cold-rolled steel products)

from Turkey are being sold, or are likely

to be sold, in the United States at less

than fair value (LTFV), as provided in

section 733 of the Tariff Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

On June 21, 1999, the Department

initiated antidumping duty

investigations of imports of cold-rolled

steel products from Argentina, Brazil,

the People’s Republic of China,

Indonesia, Japan, the Russian

Federation, Slovakia, South Africa,

Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and

Venezuela. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled CarbonQuality Steel Products from Argentina,

Brazil, the People’s Republic of China,

Indonesia, Japan, the Russian

Federation, Slovakia, South Africa,

Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and

Venezuela, 164 FR 34194 (June 25,

1999) (Initiation Notice). Since the

initiation of the investigations, the

following events have occurred:

The Department set aside a period for

all interested parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. From July

through October 1999, the Department

received responses from a number of

parties including importers,

respondents, consumers, and

petitioners 1, aimed at clarifying the

scope of the investigation. See

Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini,

November 1, 1999 (Scope

Memorandum) for a list of all persons

submitting comments and a discussion

of all scope comments. There are several

scope exclusion requests for products

which are currently covered by the

scope of this investigation that are still

under consideration by the Department.

These items are considered to be within

the scope for this preliminary

determination; however, these requests

will be reconsidered for the final

determination. See Scope

Memorandum.

On June 22, 1999, the Department

requested information from the U.S.

Embassy in Turkey to identify

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise. On June 21, 1999, the

Department also requested comments

from petitioners, two potential

respondents, Ereg ̆li Demir ve C ̧elik

Fabrikalari T.A.S ̧’’. (Erdemir) and

Borc ̧elik C ̧elik Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.

(Borcelik), and the Embassy of Turkey

in Washington regarding the criteria to

be used for model matching purposes.

On July 26, 1999, Borcelik submitted

comments on our proposed modelmatching criteria. Petitioners filed

additional model match comments on

June 28, 1999.

On July 16, 1999, the United States

International Trade Commission (the

Commission) notified the Department of

its affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case.

The Department issued antidumping

questionnaires to Erdemir and Borcelik

on June 22, 1999 (Section A) and July

9, 1999 (Sections B through D). The

questionnaire is divided into five parts;

we requested that Erdemir and Borcelik

respond to Section A (general

information, corporate structure, sales

practices, and merchandise produced),

Section B (home market or third-country

sales), Section C (U.S. sales), and

Section D (cost of production/

constructed value for high inflation

economies). In addition, we required

respondents to respond to additional

questions based on our determination

that the Turkish economy underwent

high inflation during the POI.2