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

1128 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

investigations and reviews (see Policy Bulletin No.

94.5, entitled ‘‘Differences in Merchandise

Calculations in Hyperinflationary Economies,’’

dated March 25, 1994).

Respondents submitted their initial

responses to Section A of the

Department’s questionnaire on July 13,

1999. We received Borcelik’s sections B

through D response on August 31, 1999.

Erdemir submitted it’s response to

sections B through D on September 3,

1999. Petitioners filed comments on

respondents’ questionnaire responses on

July 27, 1999, and September 13, 1999.

We issued the following supplemental

questionnaires to respondents: (i)

Section A on August 24, 1999, and (ii)

sections B through D on September 16,

1999. Erdemir and Borcelik responded

to our section A supplemental

questionnaire on September 10, 1999.

Erdemir responded to sections B

through D of our supplemental

questionnaire on October 7, 1999;

Borcelik responded on October 14,

1999. Petitioners filed additional

comments on respondents’

supplemental responses between

September 21 and October 22, 1999. On

October 19, 1999, we issued a second

supplemental to Erdemir providing it

with an additional opportunity to

submit appropriate information on

product-specific costs. Erdemir

responded to this request on November

3, 1999. Further, we issued a second

supplemental to Borcelik on October 26,

1999, to which it responded on

November 5, 1999.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999.

Scope of Investigations

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 alloy

(‘‘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

recognized as steels with micro-alloying

levels of elements such as chromium,

copper, 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 1129

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/mm 2

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/mm 2

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 gauge steel strip, which meets the following characteristics:

Thickness: ≤ 0.100 mm +/¥7%

Width: 100 to 600 mm

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Element ............................................................. C Mn P S Al Fe

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/mm 2

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

1130 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 .................................................................................................... 20 I–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) ............................................................................ 3.8 Watts/Pound max.

NAAS

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

NAAS 1500 minimum

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

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 micron (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 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 micron (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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1131

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, and 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 uniformly 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 subheadings:

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, 7209.27.0000,

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, 7211.23.6060,

7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030,

7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500,

7211.29.6030, 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,

7226.92.8050, and 7226.99.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs Service (‘‘U.S. Customs’’)

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Facts Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff 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.’’

In this case Erdemir failed, in its

original and supplemental responses, to

provide unique product costs which

account for the differences in physical

characteristics as defined by the

Department. Erdemir assigned the same

costs to all products within a cold-rolled

family group. That methodology does

not provide product-specific cost of

production (COP) information, nor does

it provide the Department with

information to calculate a difference in

merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment to

account for differences in physical

characteristics when comparing sales of

similar merchandise. Additionally,

Erdemir created these cold-rolled

families using its matching

characteristics that, while based on the

company’s records, do not correspond

to the characteristics identified by the

Department. See ‘‘Product Comparison’’

section below. Without accurate data for

these items, we cannot perform a

reliable cost test; we cannot make

appropriate selections of sales for priceto-price comparisons; nor can we

determine accurate constructed values

for use as normal value. We issued

Erdemir several supplemental

questionnaires requesting that it correct

these errors, but it failed to do so.

Accordingly, Erdemir’s failure to

provide the requested data renders its

response unusable for this preliminary

determination. Therefore, in light of

Erdemir’s failure to provide requested

information necessary to calculate

dumping margins in this case, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Tariff Act, we are forced to resort to

total facts available for this preliminary

determination.

Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act

provides that, if the Department finds

that 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 use

information that is adverse to the

interests of the party as facts otherwise

available. Adverse inferences are

appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party

does not obtain a more favorable result

by failing to cooperate than if it had

cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

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

316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870

(1994). Furthermore, ‘‘an affirmative

finding of bad faith on the part of the

1132 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

respondent is not required before the

Department may make an adverse

inference.’’ Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997), (Final

Rule).

In this case we have determined that

Erdemir has not acted to the best of its

ability in responding to the

Department’s request for productspecific cost information that takes into

account physical differences in the

products. In our supplemental

questionnaires we repeatedly instructed

Erdemir to rely not only on its existing

financial and cost accounting records,

but on any other information which

would allow it to calculate a reasonable

allocation of its costs. It is standard

procedure for the Department to request

product-specific cost data and we

routinely receive such information from

respondents, as we did from the other

respondent, Borcelik, in this case. In the

Department’s experience companies

have information which allows them to

calculate a reasonable estimate of the

costs to make a given product. Even if

a company does not identify productspecific costs in its normal financial and

cost accounting records, it should be

able to make some reasonable allocation

of its costs among distinct products

through the use of other product and

production information.

Under section 782(c) of the Tariff Act,

a respondent has a responsibility not

only to notify the Department if it is

unable to provide requested

information, but also to provide a ‘‘full

explanation and suggested alternative

forms.’’ In response to our requests for

product-specific cost data Erdemir only

repeated the statement that its

accounting records did not permit it to

report product-specific costs.

Cooperation in an antidumping

investigation requires more than a

simple statement that a respondent

cannot provide certain information from

its previously prepared accounting

records; the burden to establish that it

has acted to the best of its ability rests

upon the respondent. As noted above, to

meet that burden a respondent must

explain what steps it has taken to

comply with the information request,

and propose alternative methodologies

for getting the necessary information.

See also Allied-Signal Aerospace v.

United States, 996 F.2d 1185, 1192 (Fed.

Cir. 1993). Erdemir has failed to do

either. Moreover, we find that Erdemir’s

claim that it is unable to provide this

information is inconsistent with

Erdemir’s other statements and

information on the record of this case.

For example, Erdemir closely tracks

actual production for yield purposes

and for purposes of identifying

particular coils for warehouse

identification as is evidenced by the

yield information maintained by the

company and the identifying tags

affixed to each finished product.

Erdemir also has budgets,

manufacturing standards, and

engineering standards for specific

products listed in the company’s

product brochure. Erdemir must

develop production plans involving the

identification of certain products as

produced from certain raw materials on

certain production lines using specific

engineering standards. Further, to

maintain ISO certification, Erdemir

must maintain contemporaneous

records of production and processes to

insure the quality of the products it

produces. While Erdemir’s financial

accounting records do not contain the

information requested on separate

product costs, the company could have

developed a reasonable allocation

methodology to allocate costs to

products on a control number

(CONNUM)-specific basis using the

company’s normal cost accounting

records as a starting point to calculate

CONNUM-specific costs. The

Department repeatedly requested that

Erdemir look beyond its financial and

cost accounting records and select from

a variety of available data using, for

example, engineering standards, direct

labor hours, machine hours, budgeting

systems, production line reports,

production time, or other production

records for allocating costs to products

on a CONNUM-specific basis.

Given Erdemir’s repeated failure

throughout the investigation to provide

product-specific cost data that takes into

account physical differences in the

product or to provide any meaningful

explanation of why such data could not

be provided, we preliminarily

determine that Erdemir did not

cooperate to the best of its ability.

Accordingly, we have used an adverse

inference in selecting the facts available

to determine Erdemir’s margin.

In addition, Borcelik failed, in its

original and supplemental response, to

provide COP data for major inputs

purchased from an affiliated party.

Therefore, in accordance with section

776(a) of the Tariff Act, we have

preliminarily determined to use facts

available in computing the affiliate’s

COP for purposes of the major input

rule. As facts available we used the cost

of major inputs from the petition. See

‘‘Cost of Production’’ section below.

Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act

provides that where the Department

selects from among the facts otherwise

available and relies on ‘‘secondary

information,’’ such as the petition, the

Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that information

from independent sources reasonably at

the Department’s disposal. The SAA

states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to

determine that the information used has

probative value. See SAA at 870. In this

proceeding we considered the petition

as the most appropriate information on

the record to form the basis for a

dumping calculation for Erdemir and for

the cost of a major input for Borcelik. In

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Tariff Act, we sought to corroborate the

data contained in the petition. We

reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of

the information in the petition during

our pre-initiation analysis of the

petition, to the extent appropriate

information was available for this

purpose (e.g., import statistics, cost data

and foreign market research reports).

See Initiation Notice at 34202. For

purposes of the preliminary

determination, we attempted to further

corroborate the information in the

petition. We re-examined the export

price, home market price, and CV data

provided for the margin calculations in

the petition in light of information

obtained during the investigation and,

to the extent practicable, found that it

has probative value (see Memorandum

to the File, ‘‘Facts Available Rate and

Corroboration of Secondary

Information,’’ dated December 8, 1999).

As adverse facts available, we have

preliminarily assigned Erdemir the rate

of 32.91 percent, the highest calculated

margin in the petition. This rate is

subject to further comments by

interested parties and therefore may be

changed for the final determination.

Product Comparisons

We relied on fourteen criteria to

match U.S. sales of subject merchandise

to comparison-market sales of the

foreign like product: hardening and

tempering, paint, carbon level, quality,

yield strength, minimum thickness,

thickness tolerance, width, edge finish,

form, temper rolling, leveling,

annealing, and surface finish. A detailed

description of the matching criteria, as

well as our matching methodology is

contained in the Borcelik’s Preliminary

Determination Memorandum, dated

December 8, 1999 (Preliminary

Determination Memorandum).

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of coldrolled steel products from Turkey were

made in the United States at less than

fair value, we compared the export price

(EP) to the normal value (NV), as

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1133

3Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act provides

for an upward adjustment to U.S. price for duty

drawback on import duties which have been

rebated (or which have not been collected) by

reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise

to the United States. The Department applies a twoContinued

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section

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

calculated weighted-average EPs for

comparison to weighted-average NVs.

Turkey experienced significant inflation

during the POI, as measured by the

Wholesale Price Index, published in the

June 1999 issue of International

Financial Statistics. Accordingly, to

avoid distortions caused by the effects

of significant inflation on prices, we

calculated EPs and NVs on a monthly

average basis, rather than on a POI

average basis. We then compared

weighted-average EPs to weightedaverage NVs for the same month.

Transactions Investigated

For home market and U.S. sales

Borcelik reported the date of invoice as

the date of sale, in keeping with the

Department’s stated preference for using

the invoice date as the date of sale.

Borcelik stated that the invoice date best

reflects the date on which the material

terms of sale are established and that

price or quantity or both can change

between contract date and invoice date.

However, petitioners have alleged that

the sales documentation indicates that

the contract date appears to be the date

when the material terms of sale are set

for all of Borcelik’s sales of cold-rolled

steel. Given the nature of marketing

these types of made-to-order products,

the Department requested that Borcelik

provide additional information

concerning the nature and frequency of

price and quantity changes occurring

between the contract date and date of

invoice. We also requested that Borcelik

report change order date for all home

market and United States sales and to

ensure that all sales with change order

or invoice dates within the POI are

reported.

Borcelik claims that invoice date is

the appropriate date of sale for both U.S.

and home market sales, stating that this

is the first date in which terms of sale

are set. However, petitioners believe

that all terms of sale are determined at

the time of the sales contract and

therefore claim that this date is the more

appropriate date to use. Because there is

evidence on the record suggesting that

the terms of sale may change between

the contract date and the issuance of the

invoice, the Department is preliminarily

using the invoice date as the date of sale

for both home market and U.S. sales. We

intend to fully examine this issue at

verification, and we will incorporate our

findings, as appropriate, in our analysis

for the final determination. If we

determine that change order is the

appropriate date of sale, we may resort

to facts available for the final

determination to the extent that this

information has not been reported.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the

extent practicable, we determine NV

based on sales in the comparison market

at the same level of trade (LOT) as the

EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT 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 selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses and

profit. For EP the US LOT is also the

level of the starting price sale, which is

usually from the exporter to the

importer. For CEP it is the level of the

constructed sale from the exporter to the

importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, 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 LOT, 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 LOT

of the export transaction, we make a

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Finally,

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 differences in

the levels between NV and CEP affects

price comparability, we adjust NV

under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Tariff

Act (the CEP offset provision). (See, e.g.,

Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South

Africa, Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61731

(November 19, 1997)).

In implementing these principles in

this investigation, we obtained

information from Borcelik about the

marketing stages involved in its

reported U.S. and home market sales,

including a description of the selling

activities performed by Borcelik 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.

Borcelik reported numerous customer

categories and one channel of

distribution (i.e., sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated end-users) for its home

market sales. Borcelik only reported EP

sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales

Borcelik reported one customer category

(i.e., trading companies) and one

channel of distribution (i.e., sales

through Boruan Dagitim to trading

companies). Borcelik did not claim that

its sales to home market customers are

at a different LOT than its sales to U.S.

customers and, therefore, did not claim

a LOT adjustment.

In determining whether separate

LOTs actually existed in the home

market, we examined whether

Borcelik’s sales involved different

marketing stages (or their equivalent)

based on the channel of distribution,

customer categories and selling

functions. As noted above, Borcelik’s

sales to its unaffiliated and affiliated

customers were made through the same

channel of distribution, albeit to

different categories of customer, with no

differences in selling functions. Based

on these factors we find that Borcelik’s

home market sales comprise a single

LOT.

In comparing the LOT of Borcelik’s EP

sales with that of its home market sales,

we noted that its EP sales generally

involved the same selling functions

associated with the home market LOT

described above. Therefore, based upon

this information, we have preliminarily

determined that the LOT for all EP sales

is the same as that in the home market.

Accordingly, because we find the U.S.

sales and home market sales to be at the

same LOT, no LOT adjustment under

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act is

warranted.

For a detailed level-of-trade analysis

with respect to Borcelik, see Preliminary

Determination Analysis Memorandum,

dated December 8, 1999.

Export Price

We calculated EP in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Tariff Act because

the merchandise was sold to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation and CEP

methodology was not otherwise

warranted, based on the facts of record.

We based EP on the packed FOB (or for

certain Borcelik sales, C&F) price to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act;

these included, where appropriate,

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling charges, and international

freight. We also increased the starting

price by the amount of duty drawback

because the company satisfied our twopronged test.3

1134 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

pronged test to determine whether a respondent has

fulfilled the statutory requirements for a duty

drawback adjustment. See Steel Wire Rope from the

Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 55965, 55968

(October 30, 1996). In accordance with this test, the

Department grants a duty drawback adjustment if it

finds that: (1) import duties and rebates are directly

linked to and are dependent upon one another, and

(2) the company claiming the adjustment can

demonstrate that there are sufficient imports of raw

materials to account for the duty drawback received

on exports of the manufactured products.

4As stated in 19 CFR 351.403(d), ‘‘the Secretary

normally will not calculate normal value based on

a sale by an affiliated party if sales of the foreign

like product by an exporter or producer to affiliated

parties account for less than five percent of the total

value.’’ We examined Borcelik’s affiliated party

sales and determined that they represented less

than five percent of its total sales of subject

merchandise. Therefore, we did not request that

Borcelik report sales by its affiliates (i.e.,

downstream sales). See Borcelik Analysis

Memorandum, December 8, 1999.

Affiliated-Party Transactions and

Arm’s-Length Test

Borcelik’s sales to affiliated customers

in the home market not made at arm’slength prices (if any) were excluded

from our analysis because we

considered them to be outside the

ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR

351.102. To test whether these sales

were made at arm’s-length prices, we

compared on a model-specific basis the

starting prices of sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers net of all

movement charges, direct selling

expenses, and packing. Where, for the

tested models of subject merchandise,

prices to the affiliated party were on

average 99.5 percent or more of the

price to the unaffiliated parties, we

determined that sales made to the

affiliated party were at arm’s length. See

19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where

no price ratio could be calculated for an

affiliated customer because identical

merchandise was not sold to

unaffiliated customers, we were unable

to determine that these sales were made

at arm’s-length prices and, therefore,

excluded them from our LTFV analysis.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9,

1993) and Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value and Postponement of Final

Determination; Emulsion StyreneButadiene Rubber from Brazil, 63 FR

59509, 59512 (November 4, 1998).4

Where the exclusion of such sales

eliminated all sales of the most

appropriate comparison product, we

made a comparison to the next most

similar model.

Normal Value

Home Market Viability

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was equal to or

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales), we compared

Borcelik’s volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product to the volume

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)

of the Tariff Act. As Borcelik’s aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market

was viable. Therefore, we have based

NV on home market sales in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on allegations contained in the

petition, and in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act, we

found reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that sales of cold-rolled steel

products produced in Turkey were

made at prices below the COP. As a

result, the Department has initiated

investigations to determine whether

Borcelik made home market sales

during the POI at prices below its

respective COP, within the meaning of

section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. We

conducted the COP analysis described

below (see Initiation Notice).

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP

based on the sum of Borcelik’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus an amount for home

market selling, general and

administrative, interest expenses, and

packing costs. As noted above, we

determined that the Turkish economy

experienced significant inflation during

the POI. Therefore, in order to avoid the

distortive effect of inflation on our

comparison of costs and prices, we

computed indexed monthly costs based

on the weighted average of all monthly

costs as indexed for inflation over the

POI (see, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, 64 FR

49150, 49153 (September 10, 1999)).

We used the information from

Borcelik’s Section D questionnaire

responses to calculate COP. We used

Borcelik’s monthly COP amounts,

adjusted as discussed below, and the

Wholesale Price Index from the IMF’s

International Financial Statistics to

compute monthly weighted-average

COPs for the POI. We made the

following adjustments to Borcelik’s

reported costs:

1. Pursuant to section 773(f)(3) of the

Tariff Act and section 351.407 of the

Department’s regulations, we reviewed

affiliated-party transactions and where

appropriate used the higher of transfer

price, COP or market price for all major

inputs from affiliated parties. Because

the affiliate’s COP was not provided by

Borcelik, we used as facts available the

costs provided for manufacturing hot

rolled coil as contained in the original

petition dated June 2, 1999.

2. Pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the

Tariff Act, we reviewed affiliated

transactions and, where appropriate,

used the transfer or market price for

minor inputs of raw materials

purchased from affiliated parties.

3. We adjusted the general and

administrative (G&A) expense rate to

exclude shipping rebates related to

exports of finished goods and to include

bonuses for management personnel.

4. We recalculated Borcelik’s cost of

production to include foreign exchange

losses on imported coils.

See Preliminary Determination Cost

Calculation Memorandum for Borcelik,

dated December 28, 1999.

B. Test of Home-Market Sales Prices

We compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP for Borcelik to the home

market sales of the foreign like product,

as required under section 773(b) of the

Tariff 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 and

whether such prices were sufficient to

permit the recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time. In

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i)

of the Tariff 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

normal value.

On a model-specific basis, we

compared the revised COP to the home

market prices, less any applicable

movement charges and other direct and

indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Tariff 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices 1135

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 Tariff Act. In such cases, because we

compared prices to (indexed) POIaverage costs, we also determined that

such sales were not made at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Tariff Act. Therefore, we

disregarded the below-cost sales.

We found that for certain models of

cold-rolled steel products, more than 20

percent of the home-market sales by

Borcelik 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 Tariff Act. For

those U.S. sales of cold-rolled steel

products for which there were no

comparable home-market sales in the

ordinary course of trade, we compared

EP to CV in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act. See Price-toCV Comparisons, below.

D. Calculation of Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Tariff Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of Borcelik’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A, interest,

and U.S. packing costs. We made

adjustments similar to those described

above for COP. In accordance with

sections 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act,

we based SG&A and profit on the

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 foreign country.

For selling expenses we used the

weighted-average home market selling

expenses.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated NV based on the FOB

or delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers. We made deductions, where

appropriate, from the starting price for

billing adjustments, inland freight,

inland insurance. We made adjustments

for differences in the merchandise in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)

of the Tariff Act. In addition, we made

adjustments under section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act for

differences in circumstances of sale for

imputed credit expenses, and

warranties. Finally, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff

Act.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act.

We deducted from CV the weightedaverage home market direct selling

expenses and added the weightedaverage U.S. product-specific direct

selling expenses in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act.

Currency Conversions

Because this proceeding involves a

high-inflation economy, we limited our

comparison of U.S. and home market

sales to those occurring in the same

month (as described above) and only

used daily exchange rates. See Certain

Porcelain on Steel Cookware from

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

42496, 42503–03 (August 7, 1997) and

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta

from Turkey, 61 FR 30309 (June 14,

1996).

The Department’s preferred source for

daily exchange rates is the Federal

Reserve Bank. However, the Federal

Reserve Bank does not track or publish

exchange rates for the Turkish lira.

Therefore, we made currency

conversions based on the daily

exchange rates from the Dow Jones

Service, as published in the Wall Street

Journal.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Tariff Act, we intend to verify all

information relied upon in making our

final determinations.

Suspensions of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Tariff Act, we are directing the

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all entries of cold-rolled steel

products from Turkey that are entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

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

exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart

below. These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Erdemir ..................................... 32.91

Borcelik ..................................... 8.81

All others ................................... 8.81

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Tariff Act, we have notified the ITC

of our determination. If our final

antidumping determinations are

affirmative, the ITC will determine

whether these imports 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 this

preliminary determination or 45 days

after the date of our final

determinations.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than fifty days

after the date of publication of this

notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in case briefs, no later than

fifty-five days after the date of

publication of this preliminary

determination. A list of authorities used

and an executive summary of issues

should accompany any briefs submitted

to the Department. Such summary

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes. In accordance with

section 774 of the Tariff Act, we will

hold a public hearing, if requested, to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any

hearing will be held fifty-seven days

after publication of this notice, time and

room to be determined, at the U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

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

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. We intend to make

our final determination no later than 75

1136 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2000 / Notices

days after the date of this preliminary

determination.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1)

of the Tariff Act.

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–301 Filed 1–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–806, A–484,801]

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from

Japan and Greece: Notice of Extension

of Time Limits for Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time

Limits for Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is extending the time limit for the

preliminary results of the antidumping

duty administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on electrolytic

manganese dioxide from Japan and

Greece. The period of review is April 1,

1998, through March 31, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Tabash or Richard Rimlinger, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5047 or (202) 482–

4477, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

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, as

amended (the Act), by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (URAA). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department of

Commerce’s (the Department’s)

regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351

(1998).

Extension of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results

The Department has received a

request to conduct administrative

reviews of the antidumping duty orders

on electrolytic manganese dioxide from

Japan and Greece. On May 20, 1999, and

June 30, 1999, the Department initiated

these administrative reviews covering

the period April 1, 1998, through March

31, 1999 (64 FR 28973 and 64 FR 35124

respectively).

Because it is not practicable to

complete these reviews within the time

limit mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A)

of the Act (see Memoranda from Richard

W. Moreland to Robert S. LaRussa,

Extension of Time Limit for

Administrative Reviews of Electrolytic

Manganese Dioxide from Japan and

Greece, December 21, 1999), the

Department is extending the time limits

for the preliminary results to February

14, 2000. The Department intends to

issue the final results of reviews 120

days after the publication of the

preliminary results. This extension of

the time limit is in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.213(h)(2).

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Louis I. Apple,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–396 Filed 1–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–506]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

the People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Porcelainon-Steel (‘‘POS’’) Cooking Ware from

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)

in response to a request by the

petitioner. The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise, Clover Enamelware

Enterprise, Ltd. of China (‘‘Clover’’), and

its Hong Kong reseller, Lucky

Enamelware Factory Ltd. (‘‘Lucky’’).

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is

December 1, 1997 through November

30, 1998.

We have preliminarily determined

that U.S. sales of subject merchandise

by Clover and Lucky have not been

made below normal value (hereinafter

referred to as Clover/Lucky). Since

Clover/Lucky submitted full responses

to the antidumping questionnaire and it

has been established that it is

sufficiently independent, it is entitled to

a separate rate. If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results

of administrative review, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess no antidumping duties on entries

from Clover/Lucky during the POR.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell Morris, Office of AD/CVD

Enforcement VI, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue N.W., Washington D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

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

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351

(1999).

Background

On December 2, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on POS cooking

ware from the PRC (51 FR 43414). On

December 8, 1998, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of opportunity to request an

administrative review of this

antidumping duty order (63 FR 67646).

On December 30, 1998, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the petitioner,

Columbian Home Products, LLC,

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of Clover, a

manufacturer/exporter, and its Hong

Kong reseller Lucky. On January 25,

1999, we published the notice of

initiation of this review covering the

period December 1, 1997 through

November 30, 1998 (64 FR 3682).

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for issuing a preliminary

determination in an administrative

review if it determines that it is not

practicable to complete the preliminary

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On August 25, 1999, the