70696 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Notices

1The petitioner also alleged that there is a reason

to believe or suspect that critical circumstances

exist with respect to imports of rebar from Belarus.

However, we are not making a determination with

respect to this country at this time.

Chemical Corporation withdrew their

request for an administrative review in

the above-referenced case.

Rescission of Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the

Department will rescind an

administrative review, in whole or in

part, if a party that requested a review

withdraws the request within 90 days of

the date of publication of notice of

initiation of the requested review.

Because Guangdong and Tianjin’s

withdrawal was submitted within the

90-day time limit, and no other party

requested a review, we are rescinding

the review. We will issue appropriate

appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and terms of an

APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

This determination is issued in

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (d)(4).

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Louis Apple,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–30143 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–823–809, A–841–804]

Preliminary Determinations of Critical

Circumstances: Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and

Moldova

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Mark Manning at (202)

482–4162 and (202) 482–3936,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Group II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Preliminary Determinations of Critical

Circumstances

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

Background

On July 18, 2000, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) initiated

investigations to determine whether

imports of steel concrete reinforcing

bars (rebar) from Ukraine and Moldova,

among others, are being, or are likely to

be, sold in the United States at lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) (65 FR 45754,

July 25, 2000). On August 14, 2000, the

International Trade Commission (ITC)

determined that there is a reasonable

indication of material injury to the

domestic industry from imports of rebar

from Ukraine and Moldova, among

other countries. On August 22, 2000, the

petitioner alleged that there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that critical circumstances exist with

respect to imports of rebar from the

above-referenced two countries.1

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.206(c)(2)(i), because the petitioner

submitted critical circumstances

allegations more than 20 days before the

scheduled date of the preliminary

determinations, the Department must

issue preliminary critical circumstances

determinations not later than the date of

the preliminary determinations. In a

policy bulletin issued on October 8,

1998, the Department stated that it may

issue preliminary critical circumstances

determinations prior to the date of the

preliminary determinations of dumping,

assuming sufficient evidence of critical

circumstances is available (see Change

in Policy Regarding Timing of Issuance

of Critical Circumstances

Determinations, 63 FR 55364). In

accordance with this policy, at this time

we are issuing the preliminary critical

circumstances decision in the

investigations of imports of rebar from

Ukraine and Moldova for the reasons

discussed below and in the concurrent

Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Troy

H. Cribb: Antidumping Duty

Investigations of Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Ukraine and

Moldova—Preliminary Affirmative

Determinations of Critical

Circumstances (Critical Circumstances

Preliminary Determinations

Memorandum).

Critical Circumstances

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department will preliminarily

determine that critical circumstances

exist if there is a reasonable basis to

believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a

history of dumping and material injury

by reason of dumped imports in the

United States or elsewhere of the subject

merchandise, or (ii) the person by

whom, or for whose account, the

merchandise was imported knew or

should have known that the exporter

was selling the subject merchandise at

less than its fair value and that there

was likely to be material injury by

reason of such sales, and (B) there have

been massive imports of the subject

merchandise over a relatively short

period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the

Department’s regulations provides that,

in determining whether imports of the

subject merchandise have been

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally

will examine: (i) the volume and value

of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and

(iii) the share of domestic consumption

accounted for by the imports. In

addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the

Department’s regulations provides that

an increase in imports of 15 percent

during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of

time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s

regulations defines ‘‘relatively short

period’’ as normally being the period

beginning on the date the proceeding

begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed)

and ending at least three months later.

The regulations also provide, however,

that if the Department finds that

importers, exporters, or producers, had

reason to believe, at some time prior to

the beginning of the proceeding, that a

proceeding was likely, the Department

may consider a period of not less than

three months from that earlier time.

In determining whether the above

criteria have been satisfied, we

examined: (1) The evidence presented

in the petition; (2) recent import

statistics released by the Census Bureau

after the initiation of the LTFV

investigation; and (3) the ITC

preliminary injury determination.

History of Dumping and Importer

Knowledge

We are not aware of any existing

antidumping order in any country on

rebar from Ukraine and Moldova. For

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Notices 70697

this reason, we do not find a history of

dumping from those countries pursuant

to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i). However, the

Department has looked to the second

criterion for determining knowledge of

dumping.

In determining whether there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that an importer knew or should have

known that the exporter was selling

rebar at LTFV, pursuant to section

733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the

Department’s normal practice is to

consider margins of 25 percent or more

sufficient to impute knowledge of

dumping. See Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-tto-Length

Carbon Steel Plate From the People’s

Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978

(June 11, 1997). In these instant cases,

given that we have not yet made a

preliminary finding of dumping, the

most reasonable source of information

concerning knowledge of dumping is

the petition itself. In the petitions, the

petitioner calculated estimated dumping

margins of 41.69 percent for Ukraine

and 59.98 percent for Moldova. Since

these estimated dumping margins

exceed the 25 percent threshold, we

have preliminarily imputed knowledge

of dumping to importers, exporters, or

producers of subject merchandise from

Ukraine and Moldova. See the Critical

Circumstances Preliminary

Determinations Memorandum.

In determining whether there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that an importer knew or should have

known that there was likely to be

material injury by reason of dumped

imports, under section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of

the Act, the Department normally will

look to the preliminary injury

determination of the ITC. If the ITC

finds a reasonable indication of present

material injury to the relevant U.S.

industry, the Department will determine

that a reasonable basis exists to impute

importer knowledge that there was

likely to be material injury by reason of

dumped imports. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s

Republic of China, 62 FR 61964

(November 20, 1997). In these instant

cases, the ITC found that a reasonable

indication of present material injury due

to dumping exists for imports of rebar

from Ukraine and Moldova. See ITC’s

Preliminary Determinations, August 14,

2000, Investigation Nos. 731–TA–872–

883. Therefore, we preliminarily find

that there is a reasonable basis to believe

or suspect that importers knew or

should have known that dumped

imports of rebar from Ukraine and

Moldova were likely to cause material

injury.

Massive Imports

In determining whether there are

‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively

short period,’’ pursuant to section

733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department

normally compares the import volume

of the subject merchandise for three

months immediately preceding the

filing of the petition (i.e., the base

period), and three months following the

filing of the petition (i.e., the

comparison period). However, as stated

in section 351.206(i) of the Department’s

regulations, if the Secretary finds that

importers, exporters, or producers had

reason to believe, at some time prior to

the beginning of the proceeding, that a

proceeding was likely, then the

Secretary may consider a time period of

not less than three months from that

earlier time. Imports normally will be

considered massive when imports

during the comparison period have

increased by 15 percent or more

compared to imports during the base

period.

In this case, the petitioner argues that

importers, exporters, or producers of

rebar from Ukraine and Moldova had

reason to believe that an antidumping

proceeding was likely before the filing

of the petition. In determining whether

imports from Ukraine and Moldova

have been massive, the petitioner also

alleges that rebar is a product for which

demand is subject to seasonal shifts and

that it is appropriate to use a seasonal

methodology to examine whether an

import surge occurred with respect to

the above-referenced countries.

Based upon information contained in

the petition, we found that press reports

and published statements were

sufficient to establish that, by December

1999, importers, exporters, and foreign

producers knew or should have known

that a proceeding was likely concerning

rebar from Ukraine and Moldova. We

disagree with the petitioner’s analysis of

massive imports based on seasonality

because the evidence on the record does

not substantiate that imports of rebar are

subject to seasonal shifts. See Critical

Circumstances Preliminary

Determinations Memorandum for

detailed discussion of this issue.

Accordingly, we examined the increase

in import volumes from May 1999

through December 1999 (the base

period), as compared to the import

volume during January 2000 through

August 2000 (the comparison period),

and found that imports of rebar from

Ukraine and Moldova increased by

69.30 percent and 22.08 percent,

respectively. See the Critical

Circumstances Preliminary

Determinations Memorandum.

Therefore, pursuant to section 733(e) of

the Act and section 351.206(h) of the

Department’s regulations, we

preliminarily determine that there have

been massive imports of rebar from

Ukraine and Moldova over a relatively

short time.

Conclusion

Given the above-referenced analysis,

we preliminarily determine that there is

a reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that critical circumstances exist for

imports of rebar from Ukraine and

Moldova.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(e)(2)

of the Act, if the Department issues

affirmative preliminary determinations

of sales at LTFV in the investigations

with respect to Ukraine and Moldova,

the Department, at that time, will direct

the U.S. Customs Service to suspend

liquidation of all entries of rebar from

Ukraine and Moldova that are entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after 90 days prior

to the date of publication in the Federal

Register of our preliminary

determinations of sales at LTFV. The

Customs Service shall require a cash

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the

estimated preliminary dumping margins

reflected in the preliminary

determinations of sales at LTFV

published in the Federal Register. This

suspension of liquidation will remain in

effect until further notice.

Final Critical Circumstances

Determination

We will make a final determination

concerning critical circumstances for

Ukraine and Moldova when we make

our final determinations regarding sales

at LTFV in those investigations, which

will be 75 days (unless extended) after

the preliminary LTFV determinations.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. This notice is issued and

published pursuant to section 777(i) of

the Act.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–30144 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P