20580 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices

1 J&L Speciality Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner in

the Belgium case.

2North American Stainless is not a petitioner in

the Italy case.

3The United Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/

CLC is not a petitioner in the Canada case.

41 (CIT 1984) as stating that under the

ministerial error procedure the

Department may only correct an

inadvertence or mistake that involves no

discretionary considerations. Petitioner

further contends that the Department

applied the interest expense and GNA

factors to Mannesmann’s adjusted COM

correctly under the law. Petitioner

asserts that Mannesmann fails to cite

any previous case where, unlike in this

case, the Department performed its

build-up of cost of production (COP) by

applying GNA and interest expense

factors to a COM that values a major

input at the affiliates’ reported cost of

production even though the Department

expressly disregarded those costs.

Petitioner argues that it is standard

Department practice that all COP/CV

cost calculations be based on a

respondent’s manufacturing costs as

adjusted, when appropriate, under the

major input rule.

We agree with petitioner that this

issue is methodological in nature and

have not made this correction in the

amended final results. We note that the

same calculation was made in the

preliminary results of review, and

Mannesmann did not comment on it in

its case brief.

Third, petitioner argues that the

Department erred in the calculation of

net price (NPRICOP) for use in the cost

test. Petitioner asserts that the

calculations performed understate the

adjustments to GRSUPRH (gross unit

price) and overstate NPRICOP.

Petitioner notes that Mannesmann’s

failure at verification on certain inland

freight charges (INLFTC2H) essentially

resulted in the Department’s application

of adverse facts available in the

calculation of normal value. The

petitioner further argues that the

Department’s calculation of NPRICOP in

the below-cost test rewards

Mannesmann by raising net price,

thereby tending to cause fewer sales to

fall below cost.

We disagree with petitioner that this

issue is clerical in nature. We find that

this issue is methodological in nature

and have not made this correction in the

amended final results. Since most of

petitioner’s argument is business

proprietary, please see Amended Final

Analysis Memorandum for a more

detailed explanation of this issue. We

note that the same calculation was made

in the preliminary results of review, and

petitioner did not comment on it in its

case brief.

Amended Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

weighted-average margin exists:

Manufacturer/

exporter Period of review

Margin

(percent)

Mannesmann 1/27/95—7/31/96 21.94

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We will calculate importerspecific ad valorem duty assessment

rates based on the entered value of each

entry of subject merchandise during the

POR. We will direct the Customs

Service to collect cash deposits of

estimated antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. The amended

deposit requirements are effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication date of this notice and will

remain in effect until the publication of

the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and subsequent assessment of

double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation. Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with Section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10999 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–808, A–122–830, A–475–822, A–791–

805, A–580–831 and A–583–830]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Stainless Steel Plate in

Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy,

Republic of South Africa, South Korea

and Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Presing (Belgium), at (202) 482–

0194; Maureen McPhillips (Canada), at

(202) 482–0193; Rick Johnson (Italy,

Republic of Korea, and Taiwan) at (202)

482–3818; Robert James (Republic of

South Africa), at (202) 482–5222, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

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 to the

current regulations, as amended by the

regulations published in the Federal

Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

The Petition

On March 31, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by Armco,

Inc., J&L Specialty Steel, Inc.1, Lukens,

Inc., North American Stainless 2, the

United Steelworkers of America, AFL–

CIO/CLC3, the Butler Armco

Independent Union and the Zanesville

Armco Independent Organization, Inc.

(petitioners). The Department received

supplemental information to the

petition on April 14, 15, 17 and 20,

1998.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, petitioners allege that imports

of stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC)

from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of

South Africa, Republic of Korea and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices 20581

4See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value within the meaning of section 731

of the Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that petitioners

filed the petition on behalf of the

domestic industry because they are

interested parties as defined in section

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they

have demonstrated sufficient industry

support with respect to each of the

antidumping investigations they are

requesting the Department to initiate

(see Discussion below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

the product covered is certain stainless

steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an

alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2

percent or less of carbon and 10.5

percent or more of chromium, with or

without other elements. The subject

plate products are flat-rolled products,

254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm

or more in thickness, in coils, and

annealed or otherwise heat treated and

pickled or otherwise descaled. The

subject plate may also be further

processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished,

etc.) provided that it maintains the

specified dimensions of plate following

such processing. Excluded from the

scope of this petition are the following:

(1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not

annealed or otherwise heat treated and

pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet

and strip, and (4) flat bars.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) at subheadings:

7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60,

7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.20,

7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50,

7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.65,

7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80,

7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10,

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80,

7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10,

7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60,

7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05,

7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15,

7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80,

7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15,

7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed scope with the petitioners to

insure that the scope in the petition

accurately reflects the product for which

they are seeking relief. Moreover, as

discussed in the preamble to the new

regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting

aside a period for parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments by May 8, 1998.

Comments should be addressed to

Import Administration’s Central Record

Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The period of scope consultations is

intended to provide the Department

with ample opportunity to consider all

comments and consult with parties

prior to the issuance of the preliminary

determination.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who account for

production of the domestic like product.

The International Trade Commission

(ITC), which is responsible for

determining whether ‘‘the domestic

industry’’ has been injured, must also

determine what constitutes a domestic

like product in order to define the

industry. While both the Department

and the ITC must apply the same

statutory definition regarding the

domestic like product (section 771 (10)

of the Act), they do so for different

purposes and pursuant to separate and

distinct authority. In addition, the

Department’s determination is subject to

limitations of time and information.

Although this may result in different

definitions of the like product, such

differences do not render the decision of

either agency contrary to the law.4

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product that

is like, or in the absence of like, most

similar in characteristics and uses with,

the article subject to an investigation

under this title.’’ Thus, the reference

point from which the domestic like

product analysis begins is ‘‘the article

subject to an investigation,’’ i.e., the

class or kind of merchandise to be

investigated, which normally will be the

scope as defined in the petition.

The domestic like product referred to

in the petition is the single domestic

like product defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section, above. The

Department has no basis on the record

to find the petition’s definition of the

domestic like product to be inaccurate.

The Department has, therefore, adopted

the domestic like product definition set

forth in the petition. In this case, the

Department has determined that the

petition and supplemental information

to the petition contain adequate

evidence of sufficient industry support.

For all countries, producers and workers

supporting the petition represent over

50 percent of total production of the

domestic like product. Therefore,

polling was not necessary. Accordingly,

the Department determines that the

petition is filed on behalf of the

domestic industry within the meaning

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

On April 14, 1998, Atlas Stainless

Steels (Sammi Atlas), a producer of

SSPC in Canada, requested that the

Department poll the domestic industry

regarding its support for the petition as

required by 19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A).

Sammi Atlas alleges that the petitioners

are not sufficiently representative of a

domestic industry to permit them to

maintain a petition on stainless steel

plate in coils from Canada pursuant to

19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A)(ii). Sammi

Atlas argues that the petitioners

overstated their share of U.S. production

of SSPC by including the further

processing of largely-imported products

into SSPC. Moreover, Sammi Atlas

contends that the petitioners have

inflated production volumes of two

other petitioning companies. Therefore,

Sammi Atlas maintains that after the

exclusion of the further-processed

production volumes and the application

of the correct U.S. production volumes,

the petitioners fail to have enough

support for the petition, as required in

section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Accordingly, Atlas requests that the

Department poll the domestic stainless

plate industry to determine whether

there is industry support for the petition

with respect to Canada, as required by

19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A).
20582 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices

In response to Sammi Atlas’

submission, the Department requested

and received affidavits from each of the

petitioning companies testifying to the

accuracy of the production volumes of

SPPC reported in the petition. In

addition, we contacted Armco and

North American Stainless to obtain

additional information which

corroborated their affidavits. While both

parties have submitted affidavits in

support of their production volumes, we

believe that the individual affidavits

from each petitioning company for their

own production lend more credibility to

the petitioners’ production volumes

than those submitted by the Canadian

producer, Sammi Atlas. Even if North

American Stainless were not included

as a producer of SSPC, producers

supporting the petition still account for

more that 50% of total production of

domestic like product. Therefore, the

issue of whether or not North American

is a producer of the subject merchandise

is moot. Accordingly, the Department

has determined that the petition was

filed on behalf of the domestic industry

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)

of the Act (see, Memorandum to the file,

dated April 20, 1998).

Export Price and Normal Value

The following are descriptions of the

allegations of sales at less than fair value

upon which our decisions to initiate

these investigations are based. Should

the need arise to use any of this

information in our preliminary or final

determinations for purposes of facts

available under section 776 of the Act,

we may re-examine the information and

revise the margin calculations, if

appropriate.

Belgium

The petitioners identified ALZ, N.V.

(ALZ), Cockerill Sambre S.A., and

Fabrique de Fer Charleroi as possible

exporters of SSPC from Belgium. The

petitioners further identified ALZ as the

sole producer of subject merchandise in

Belgium. The petitioners based export

price (EP) for ALZ on U.S. sales prices

(from foreign market research) for the

first sales to unaffiliated purchasers in

January 1998. Because the terms of

ALZ’s U.S. sales were delivered to the

U.S. customer, the petitioners calculated

a net U.S. price by subtracting estimated

costs for shipment from ALZ’s factory in

Belgium to the port of export (from

foreign market research). In addition,

the petitioners subtracted ocean freight,

insurance (from official year U.S. import

statistics), and estimated costs for U.S.

import duties and fees (from the 1997

HTSUS schedule). Petitioners also

subtracted amounts for the U.S. harbor

maintenance fee and U.S. merchandise

processing fee (19 CFR, §§ 24.23 and

24.24). Finally, the petitioners obtained

net U.S. prices by also subtracting costs

incurred to transport the merchandise

from the U.S. port to the customer’s

location in the United States (from

affidavit from petitioners), and credit

expenses.

With respect to normal value (NV),

based on information available to them,

petitioners determined that volume of

Belgium home market sales was

sufficient to form a basis for normal

value, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners

obtained gross unit prices (from foreign

market research) for the products

offered for sale to customers in Belgium

which are either identical or similar to

those sold to the United States.

Petitioners adjusted these prices by

subtracting estimated average delivery

costs and credit expenses (from foreign

market research). Petitioners provided

information demonstrating reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of SSPC in the home market provided in

the petition were made at prices below

the cost of production (COP), within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act,

and requested that the Department

conduct a country-wide sales below cost

investigation. Because one of the home

market sales used in the petition was

below the calculated COP, pursuant to

sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act,

the petitioners based NV for that sale in

Belgium on constructed value (CV).

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act,

CV consists of the cost of materials,

fabrication, other processing (i.e., cost of

manufacturing (COM)) and selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and profit. To calculate COM

and SG&A, the petitioners relied on

market research data, and ALZ’s 1996

financial statements. The petitioners

added to CV an amount for profit

obtained from ALZ’s 1996 financial

statements.

The estimated dumping margins in

the petition, based on a comparison

between ALZ’s U.S. prices and CV, are

12.06 percent and 16 percent. Based on

a comparison of EP to home market

prices, petitioners calculated dumping

margins are 9.33 percent.

Canada

The petitioners identified Atlas

Stainless Steels (Sammi Atlas), Division

of Sammi Atlas, Inc., a member of the

Sammi Group, a major South Korean

producer of stainless steel products, as

the sole Canadian producer of SSPC.

Therefore, the petitioners conclude that

Sammi Atlas accounts for substantially

all Canadian exports of SSPC to the

United States.

The petitioners based EP on two of

Sammi Atlas’ export sales to steel

service centers/distributors in the

United States (from domestic industry

sources). To calculate the net export

price for the first U.S. sale, dated

September 1997, petitioners deducted

estimated U.S. inland freight (from the

experience of U.S. producers),

international freight and insurance

(from the 1997 HTSUS schedule),

customs duties, harbor maintenance,

merchandise processing fees (from

official year U.S. import statistics), and

foreign inland freight (from affidavit

from petitioners).

Because the terms of the gross unit

price of the February 1998 sale to the

U.S. were ex-mill, duty-paid, petitioners

adjusted the gross unit price by

subtracting U.S. import duties, harbor

maintenance, and merchandise

processing fees.

With respect to NV, based on

information available to them,

petitioners determined that the volume

of Canadian home market sales was

sufficient to form a basis for NV,

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of

the Act. Petitioners used the prices for

two home market sales of SSPC made in

May 1997 and February 1998 by Sammi

Atlas to unaffiliated steel service

centers. Since the gross unit price of the

May 1997 sale was on an FOB basis

with 30-day payment terms, they

calculated the net home market price for

this sale to the first unaffiliated

customer by subtracting the estimated

credit expense (from ‘‘International

Financial Statistics’’ of the International

Monetary Fund).

The gross unit price for the February

1998 sale of the same product included

an amount for an alloy surcharge and

inland freight charges (from foreign

marker research). Petitioners subtracted

from the price to the unaffiliated

customer these two items and an

amount reflecting estimated credit

expenses for the 30-day payment (from

foreign marker research) terms to yield

the net home market price in Canadian

dollars. The two Canadian home market

sales were then converted to U.S. dollar

prices using the official exchange rate in

effect on the month of the comparison

U.S. sale.

The two price comparisons of EP to

NV yield dumping margins of 15.35

percent and 6.85 percent, respectively.

Italy

The petitioners identified Arinox Srl

(Arinox) as an exporter and Acciai

Speciali Terni SpA (AST) as an exporter

and producer of SSPC from Italy.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices 20583

Petitioners relied on price information

for AST, basing EP on U.S. sales prices

obtained by two of the petitioning

companies for sales to an unaffiliated

purchaser in November 1997. The

petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by

subtracting amounts for foreign inland

freight (from foreign market research),

U.S. inland freight (from an affidavit

from petitioners), international freight

and insurance (the average difference in

the C.I.F. values and the U.S. Customs

values reported in the official U.S.

import statistics for 1997), U.S. harbor

maintenance and U.S. merchandise

processing fees (19 CFR, §§ 24.23 and

24.24), and estimated costs for U.S.

import duties (from the 1997 HTSUS

schedule). Imputed credit was also

deducted from export price for the

price-to-price comparison (lending rate

as published in International Financial

Statistics).

With respect to NV, based on

information reasonably available to

them, petitioners determined that the

volume of Italian home market sales was

sufficient to form a basis for normal

value, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners

obtained gross unit prices from a foreign

market research for products offered for

sale to customers in Italy which are

either identical or similar to those sold

to the United States. Petitioners

adjusted these prices by subtracting

estimated average delivery costs (from

foreign market research). Petitioners did

not adjust for packing costs because

petitioners claim that packing for export

is more expensive than packing for

domestic shipment.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that the sales of

stainless steel plate in coils in the home

market provided in the petition were

made at prices below COP, within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act,

and requested that the Department

conduct a country-wide sales below cost

investigation. Because the home market

sales used in the petition were below

the calculated COP, pursuant to sections

773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act, the

petitioners also based NV for sales in

Italy on CV.

CV consists of COM, SG&A, and

profit. The petitioners calculated the

direct portion of COM based on Italian

costs obtained through foreign market

research. To calculate the indirect

portion of COM, SG&A, and profit, the

petitioners relied on public information

and the 1995 financial statements of

AST, which were provided in the

petition.

The estimated dumping margins in

the petition, based on a comparison

between AST’s U.S. price and the CV,

range from 49.99 to 59.02 percent. Based

on a comparison of EP to home market

price, petitioners calculate a dumping

margin range from 11.36 percent to

34.59 percent.

Republic of South Africa

Petitioners identified two South

African exporters and producers of

stainless steel coiled plate: Columbus

Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. (Columbus) and

Iscor Ltd. (Iscor). Petitioners noted that,

to the best of their knowledge,

Columbus accounted for over 90 percent

of the exports of subject merchandise

from The Republic of South Africa.

Petitioners based EP on two duty-paid,

delivered price quotes made by

Columbus to unaffiliated U.S. steel

service centers/distributors. The quoted

prices were for two grades of coiled

plate during the fourth quarter of 1997.

Because the terms of Columbus’ U.S.

sales were delivered to the U.S.

customer, the petitioners made

deductions for international freight and

insurance, average U.S. inland freight

charges (from the experience of U.S.

producers.) from the U.S. port to all U.S.

purchaser locations, U.S. import duties,

and harbor maintenance and

merchandise processing fees. To

calculate international freight and

insurance, petitioners divided import

charges by the weight of imported

coiled plate from The Republic of South

Africa in 1997 for the two HTS numbers

named in the petition. Petitioners used

the specific ad valorem harbor

maintenance and merchandise

processing fees that U.S. Customs levies

on imported merchandise.

With respect to normal value (from

foreign market research), petitioners

determined that the volume of South

African home market sales was

sufficient to form a basis for NV

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of

the Act. Petitioners obtained two price

quotes from Columbus for coiled plate

offered for sale to customers in The

Republic of South Africa which are

either identical or similar to those sold

to the United States. Petitioners

adjusted these prices for estimated

inland freight, packing and credit

expenses. Petitioners provided

information alleging that the sales of

SSPC in the home market provided in

the petition were made at prices below

the COP, within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a sales below cost

investigation. However, based on our

review of the foreign market research

and a discussion with the foreign

market researcher whose data formed

the basis for petitioners’ below-cost

allegation, the Department has found

that the information contained in the

petition did not provide reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

in the home market have been made at

below COP.

The estimated dumping margins in

the petition based on a comparison

between U.S. prices and NV are 14.09

percent to 19.46 percent.

Republic of Korea

The petitioners identified Pohang Iron

and Steel Company (POSCO) and

Sammi Steel Company (Sammi) as

exporters and producers of SSPC from

the Republic of Korea. The petitioners

based export price on price quotations

obtained by two of the petitioning

companies for sales to unaffiliated U.S.

purchasers of SSPC manufactured by

POSCO. The quoted prices were (with

the exception of one sale) delivered,

duty paid sales of SSPC sold during the

first, third, and fourth quarters of 1997.

Petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by

subtracting from the reported U.S. price

estimated shipment costs from POSCO’s

factory in Korea to the port of export

(from foreign market research), costs for

ocean freight and insurance (the average

import charges reported in official U.S.

import statistics for Korea), import

duties (1997 HTSUS schedule), harbor

maintenance and merchandise

processing fees (19 CFR 24.23 and

24.24) and domestic inland freight (from

affidavit provided by one of the

petitioning companies).

With respect to NV, based on

information available to them,

petitioners determined that the volume

of South Korean home market sales was

sufficient to form a basis for normal

value, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners

obtained gross unit prices from market

research for SSPC manufactured by

POSCO and offered for sale to customers

in the Republic of Korea which are

either identical or similar to those sold

to the United States. Petitioners

adjusted these prices by subtracting

estimated average delivery costs (from

foreign market research).

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales of SSPC in

the home market provided in the

petition were made at prices below the

COP, within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales below cost investigation. Because

the home market sales used in the

petition were below the calculated COP,

pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and

773(e) of the Act, petitioners based NV
20584 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices

for sales in The Republic of Korea on

CV.

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act,

CV consists of the COM, SG&A, and

profit. The petitioners calculated the

direct portion of COM based on South

Korean costs obtained through market

research. To calculate the indirect

portion of COM, SG&A and CV profit,

petitioners relied on POSCO’s 1996

financial statements. Based on

comparisons of EP to CV, petitioners

estimated margins range from 30.96 to

35.78 percent. Based on a comparison of

EP to home market price, estimated

dumping margins range from 4.20

percent to 11.97 percent.

Taiwan

The petitioners identified Chang Mien

Industries Co., Ltd. (Chang Mien), Chia

Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia

Far), Chien Shing Stainless Steel (Chien

Shing), China Steel Corp. (China Steel),

Tang Eng Iron Works, Co., Ltd (Tang

Eng), Tung Mung Development Co. Ltd.

(Tung Mung), and Yieh United Steel

Corp. (Yieh United) as exporters and

producers of SSPC from Taiwan. The

petitioners based EP on price quotations

made to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers

prior to the date of importation. The

quoted prices were for delivered and

duty paid SSPC during the fourth

quarter of 1997. Petitioners calculated

net U.S. price by subtracting amounts

for international freight and insurance

(the average import charges reported in

the official U.S. import statistics under

the 1997 HTS subheading 7219.12.0045

from Taiwan), U.S. import duties (from

the 1997 HTSUS schedule) and harbor

maintenance and merchandise

processing fees (19 CFR 24.23 and

24.24) from the quoted prices. Finally,

petitioners obtained net U.S. prices by

also subtracting cost incurred to

transport the merchandise from the U.S.

port to the customer’s location in the

United States (from an affidavit from

petitioner).

With respect to NV, based on

information available to them,

petitioners determined that the volume

of Taiwanese home market sales was

sufficient to form a basis for normal

value, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners

obtained gross unit prices from foreign

market research for sales of SSPC by

Tang Eng and Tung Mung which are

either identical or similar to those sold

to the United States. Petitioners

adjusted these prices by subtracting

amounts for inland freight and

packaging (from foreign market

research). Petitioners submitted

information alleging that the sales of

SSPC in the home market provided in

the petition were made at prices below

COP, within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales below cost investigation. However,

based on our review of the foreign

market research study and a discussion

with the foreign market researcher

whose data formed the basis for

petitioners’ below-cost allegation, the

Department has found that the

information contained in the petition

did not provide reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales in the home

market have been made at below COP.

The estimated dumping margins in

the petition, based on a comparison

between Tang Eng’s and Tung Mung’s

U.S. prices and home market price,

range from 0.29 to 8.02 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,

petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales in the home

markets of Belgium, Italy, and the

Republic of Korea were made at prices

below the fully allocated COP and,

accordingly, requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales below COP investigation in

connection with the requested

antidumping investigations in each of

these countries. The Statement of

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’),

submitted to the Congress in connection

with the interpretation and application

of the Uruguay Round Agreements,

states that an allegation of sales below

COP need not be specific to individual

exporters or producers. SAA, H.R. Doc.

No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., at 833

(1994). The SAA, at 833, states that

‘‘Commerce will consider allegations of

below-cost sales in the aggregate for a

foreign country, just as Commerce

currently considers allegations of sales

at less than fair value on a country-wide

basis for purposes of initiating an

antidumping investigation.’’

Further, the SAA provides that ‘‘new

section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current

requirement that Commerce have

‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’ that below cost sales have

occurred before initiating such an

investigation. ‘Reasonable grounds’

* * * exist when an interested party

provides specific factual information on

costs and prices, observed or

constructed, indicating that sales in the

foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.’’ Id. Based upon the

comparison of the adjusted prices from

the petition of the representative foreign

like products in their respective home

markets to their costs of production, we

find the existence of ‘‘reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect’’ that sales

of these foreign like products in each of

the listed countries were made below

their respective COPs within the

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. Accordingly, the Department is

initiating the requested country-wide

cost investigations, except with regard

to Taiwan and Republic of South Africa.

(see Country specific sections above.)

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of SSPC from Belgium,

Canada, Italy, Republic of Korea, The

Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan

are being, or are likely to be, sold at less

than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petition alleges that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, and

is threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. Petitioners explained

that the industry injured condition is

evident in the declining trends in net

operating profits, net sales volumes,

profit to sales ratios and capacity

utilization. The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales and pricing information.

The Department assessed the allegations

and supporting evidence regarding

material injury and causation and

determined that these allegations are

sufficiently supported by accurate and

adequate evidence and meet the

statutory requirements for initiation.

Initiation of Antidumping

Investigations

Based upon our examination of the

petition on SSPC, as well as our

discussion with the authors of the

foreign market research reports (see,

Memoranda to the file, dated April 20,

1998), we have found that the petition

meets the requirements of section 732 of

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of SSPC

from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of

Korea, Republic of South Africa, and

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value. Unless this deadline is extended,

we will make our preliminary

determinations by September 8, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices 20585

provided to the representatives of

Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of

Korea, Republic of South Africa, and

Taiwan. We will attempt to provide a

copy of the public version of each

petition to each exporter named in the

petition (as appropriate).

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 15,

1998, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of SSPC from

Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of

Korea, Republic of South Africa, and

Taiwan are causing material injury, or

threatening to cause material injury, to

a U.S. industry. A negative ITC

determination will, for any country,

result in the investigations being

terminated with respect to that country;

otherwise, these investigations will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

Section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: April 20, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10997 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–815]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Sulfanilic Acid From the

Peoples’ Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

1996–1997 administrative review for the

antidumping order on Sulfanilic Acid

from the PRC, pursuant to the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (hereinafter,

‘‘the Act’’).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristin Stevens, Doug Campau or Steven

Presing, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

Act, the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit of

365 days. In the instant case, the

Department has determined that it is not

practicable to complete the review

within the statutory time limit.

Since it is not practicable to complete

this review within the time limits

mandated by the Act (245 days from the

last day of the anniversary month for

preliminary results, 120 additional days

for final results), in accordance with

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the

Department is extending the time limit

as follows:

Product Country Review period Initiation date Prelim due

date

Final due

date*

Sulfanilic Acid (A–570–815) ..................................................... PRC 8/1/96–7/31/97 9/25/97 7/03/98 10/31/98

*The Department shall issue the final determination 120 days after the publication of the preliminary determination.

Dated: April 21, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement,

Group III.

[FR Doc. 98–11136 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–604; A–588–054]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in

Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews and termination in part.

SUMMARY: On May 20, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its 1992–93 and 1993–94

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from Japan (A–

588–604), and of the finding on TRBs,

four inches or less in outside diameter,

and components thereof, from Japan (A–

588–054). The review of the A–588–054

finding covers four manufacturers/

exporters and ten resellers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States during the period October 1,

1993, through September 30, 1994, and

one manufacturer/exporter for the

period October 1, 1992, through

September 30, 1993. The review of the

A–588–604 order covers five

manufacturers/exporters, ten resellers/

exporters, and seventeen firms

identified by the petitioner in this case

as forging producers, and the period

October 1, 1993, through September 30,

1994. The A–588–604 review also

covers one manufacturer/exporter for

the period October 1, 1992, through

September 30, 1993.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based upon our

analysis of the comments received we

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert James at (202) 482–5222 or John

Kugelman at (202) 482–0649,

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 18, 1976, the Treasury

Department published in the Federal

Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping

finding on TRBs from Japan, and on

October 6, 1987, the Department

published the antidumping duty order