Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37521

1Armco, Inc. is not a petitioner in the Mexico

case.

2 J& L Specialty Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner in

the France case.

3Butler Armco Independent Union is not a

petitioner in the Mexico case.

4Zanesville Armco Independent Organization,

Inc. is not a petitioner in the Mexico case.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register on November 7, 1997 (62 FR

60219) a ‘‘Notice of Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic

from the People’s Republic of China (59

FR 59209, November 16, 1994). On

November 18, 1997, Fook Huat Tong

Kee Pte. Ltd. (FHTK), the respondent,

requested an administrative review of

imports of its merchandise into the

United States. The Department initiated

the review on December 23, 1997 (62 FR

67044).

Documentation we received from the

Customs Service subsequent to the

initiation of the review demonstrated

that, although Customs received

importation documentation for the

shipment of the subject merchandise,

this shipment did not result in a

reviewable entry or sale within the

period of review. Therefore, we are

rescinding the initiation of this review

in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(3). For further information

regarding this recission, see the decision

memorandum entitled ‘‘Whether to

Rescind the 96/97 Administrative

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order

on Fresh Garlic from the People’s

Republic of China,’’ from Laurie

Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland dated

July 6, 1998.

The cash-deposit rate for FHTK will

remain at 376.67 percent, the rate

established in the most recently

completed segment of this proceeding

(59 FR 59029, November 16,1994). This

notice is in accordance with section

777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended.

Dated: July 6, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18595 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–814, A–428–825, A–475–824, A–588–

845, A–201–822, A–580–834, A–583–831, A–

412–818]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils From France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South

Korea, Taiwan, and the United

Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Abdelali Elouaradia (France), at (202)

482–2243; Robert James (Germany), at

(202) 482–5222; Rick Johnson (Italy,

Republic of Korea, and Taiwan) at (202)

482–3818; Dorothy Woster (Japan), at

(202) 482–3362; Tom Killiam (Mexico),

at (202) 482–2704; Nancy Decker

(United Kingdom), at (202) 482–0196,

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 references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997).

The Petition

On June 10, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received

petitions filed in proper form by

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Armco,

Inc.,1 J&L Specialty Steel, Inc.,2

Washington Steel Division of Bethlehem

Steel Corporation (formerly Lukens,

Inc.), the United Steelworkers of

America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the Butler

Armco Independent Union 3 and the

Zanesville Armco Independent

Organization, Inc.4 (petitioners). The

Department received supplemental

information to the petitions on June 15,

16, 17, 19 and 24, 1998.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, petitioners allege that imports

of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils

(SSSS) from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea,

Taiwan, and the United Kingdom 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 these petitions 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 products covered are certain

stainless steel sheet and strip 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 sheet and strip is

a flat-rolled product in coils that is

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is

annealed or otherwise heat treated and

pickled or otherwise descaled. The

subject sheet and strip may also be

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

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.)

provided that it maintains the specific

dimensions of sheet and strip following

such processing.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheadings: 7219.13.00.30,

7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70,

7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30,

7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90,

7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20,

7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35,

7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38,

7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44,

7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20,

7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35,

7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38,

7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44,

7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20,

7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30,

7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05,

7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30,

7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10,

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80,

7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00,
37522 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

5See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

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

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

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, 7220.20.70.05,

7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15,

7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80,

7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30,

7220.20.90.60, 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.

Excluded from the scope of this

petition are the following: (1) sheet and

strip that is not annealed or otherwise

heat treated and pickled or otherwise

descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut

to length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled

stainless steel products of a thickness of

4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire, and (5)

razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a

flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not

further worked than cold-rolled (coldreduced), in coils, of a width of 9.5 to

23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or

less, containing by weight 12.5 to 14.5

percent chromium, and certified at the

time of entry to be used in the

manufacture of razor blades. See

Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ‘‘Additional

U.S. and Note’’ 1(d).

During our review of the petitions, we

discussed scope with petitioners to

insure that the scope in the petitions

accurately reflect 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 July 20, 1998.

Comments should be addressed to

Import Administration’s Central

Records 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 our preliminary

determinations.

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.5

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 petitions is the single domestic

like product defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section, above. The

Department has no basis on the record

to find petitioners’ definition of the

domestic like product to be inaccurate.

The Department, therefore, has adopted

the domestic like product definition set

forth in the petitions. In this case the

Department has determined that the

petitions and supplemental information

contained adequate evidence of

sufficient industry support, and,

therefore, polling is unnecessary (See

Attachment to the Initiation Checklist,

Re: Industry Support, June 30, 1998).

For France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom, petitioners established

industry support representing over 50

percent of total production of the

domestic like product.

Additionally, no member of the

domestic industry pursuant to section

771(9)(C) (D) or (E) has expressed

opposition on the record to the petition.

Therefore, to the best of the

Department’s knowledge, the producers

who support the petitions account for

100 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by the

portion of the industry expressing an

opinion regarding the petitions.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that these petitions are filed

on behalf of the domestic industry

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

of the Act.

Nippon Steel Corp. Japan (NSC)

submitted a letter claiming that

petitioners do not manufacture

suspension foil, and thus, do not have

standing to file an antidumping petition

against such product. However, there is

no requirement that petitioners

manufacture all merchandise within the

like product designation, only that they

are producers of the like product. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Argentina, 58 FR 37062 (1993). Because

petitioners produce the domestic like

product they are interested parties

within the meaning of sections 771(9)(C)

(D) and (E). Therefore, in accordance

with section 732(b)(1), they have

standing to file the petition. Based on

the foregoing, the Department

determines that these petitions are filed

on behalf of the domestic industry

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

of the Act.

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.

France

Petitioners identified Ugine, a

division of Usinor, S.A. (Usinor), and

Imphy, S.A. as possible exporters of

SSSS from France. Petitioners further

stated that Usinor accounts for nearly all

of the production in France. Petitioners

based export price (EP) for Usinor on

prices at which the merchandise was
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37523

first sold to unaffiliated purchasers in

the United States in December 1997. See

petitioners’ affidavit at Exhibit 6.

Because the terms of Usinor’s U.S. sales

were delivered to the U.S. customer,

petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by

subtracting estimated costs for shipment

from Usinor’s factory in France to the

port of export. See Declaration of

(Foreign Market Researcher) Regarding

Sales and Production Cost in France of

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils,

Exhibit 1 of petitioners’ June 15, 1998

submission. In addition, petitioners

subtracted ocean freight and insurance

based on official U.S. import statistics,

and estimated costs for U.S. import

duties and fees based on the 1997

HTSUS schedule. Petitioners also

subtracted amounts for U.S.

merchandise processing fees and U.S.

harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23

and 24.24, respectively). Finally,

petitioners obtained net U.S. prices by

subtracting U.S. inland freight costs (for

a discussion of the freight cost estimate,

see petitioners’ affidavit at Exhibit 23),

and credit expenses.

With respect to normal value (NV),

based on foreign market research,

petitioners determined that the volume

of French home market sales was

sufficient to form a basis for NV,

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Act. Petitioners obtained from foreign

market research gross unit prices for

products offered for sale during the

second and third quarter of 1997 and

first quarter of 1998, to customers in

France 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, and

by adding an amount for alloy

surcharge. See Declaration of (Foreign

Market Researcher) Regarding Sales and

Production Cost in France of Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 1

of petitioners’ June 15, 1998 submission.

These net home market prices were then

converted to U.S. dollar prices using the

official exchange rate in effect for the

month of the comparison U.S. sale.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that certain of the

home market sales of SSSS 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. Pursuant to section

773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the

cost of manufacturing (‘‘COM’’), selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(‘‘SG&A’’), and packing costs. To

calculate COP, petitioners relied on

foreign market research and their own

production experience, adjusted for

known differences between costs

incurred to produce SSSS in the United

States and in the foreign market. We

relied on the cost data contained in the

petition except in the following

instances: (1) rather than rely on the

foreign market research for raw material

consumption rates, we recalculated raw

material costs using the submitted

average domestic industry material costs

in the petition adjusted for known

differences in raw material input prices

between the U.S. and France based on

market research (in this regard, we

consider it more appropriate to rely on

actual raw material usage rates from a

producer of the merchandise rather than

hypothetical rates derived from foreign

market research); (2) we recalculated

fixed overhead using Usinor’s 1996

audited financial statements; and (3) we

recalculated SG&A and financial

expenses using Usinor’s 1997

consolidated financial statements.

Based on our analysis, certain of the

home market sales reported in the

petition were shown to be made at

prices below the cost of production (see

Initiation of Cost Investigations). For

these sales, petitioners based NV on the

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the

merchandise, pursuant to sections

773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. Pursuant

to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists

of the COM, SG&A expenses, packing

costs and profit of the merchandise. To

calculate the COM, SG&A expenses, and

packing costs for CV, petitioners

followed the same methodology used to

determine COP. Accordingly, we relied

on this methodology after adjusting

certain cost elements as noted above.

Petitioners derived profit for CV based

on amounts reported in Usinor’s 1997

financial statements.

The estimated dumping margins,

based on a comparison between

Usinor’s U.S. prices and adjusted CV,

range from 23.74 to 24.76 percent. Based

on a comparison of EP to home market

prices, petitioners calculated dumping

margins range from 10.02 to 39.20

percent.

Germany

Petitioners identified Krupp Thyssen

Nirosta GmbH (Krupp) as a possible

exporter of SSSS from Germany.

Petitioners further identified Krupp as

the only substantial producer of subject

merchandise in Germany. Petitioners

based EP for Krupp on prices at which

the merchandise was first sold to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States (sales were made in the second

and third quarters of 1997, and the

second quarter of 1998). See petitioners’

affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit

21. The terms of Krupp’s sales were

either delivered or FOB duty-paid U.S.

port. Therefore, petitioners calculated

FOB prices for these U.S. sales by

subtracting amounts for U.S. inland

freight, international freight and marine

insurance based on official U.S. import

statistics, U.S. import duties based on

the 1997 HTSUS schedule, and foreign

inland freight estimated based on

foreign market research (see Declaration

of (Foreign Market Researcher)

Regarding Sales and Production Cost in

Germany of Stainless Steel Sheet and

Strip in Coils, Exhibit 2 of petitioners’

June 15, 1998 submission). Petitioners

also subtracted amounts for U.S.

merchandise processing fees and U.S.

harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR,

sections 24.23 and 24.24, respectively).

Finally, petitioners obtained net U.S.

prices by subtracting credit expenses

and adding alloy surcharges to

applicable sales from petitioners’

affidavit (see petition at Exhibit 21, and

submission dated June 17, 1998, Exhibit

E).

With respect to NV, based on foreign

market research, petitioners determined

that the volume of German home market

sales was sufficient to form a basis for

NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act. Petitioners obtained from

foreign market research gross unit prices

for products offered for sale (sales were

made in the second and third quarters

of 1997) to customers in Germany which

are either identical or similar to those

sold to the United States. Petitioners

adjusted these prices by subtracting

amounts for foreign inland freight (see

Declaration of {Foreign Market

Researcher} Regarding Sales and

Production Cost in Germany of Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 2

of petitioners’ June 15, 1998

submission) and imputed credit

expenses (based on ‘‘International

Financial Statistics’’ of the International

Monetary Fund, April 1998) and added

an alloy surcharge (See petitioners’

affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit

21) for applicable sales. These net home

market prices were then converted to

U.S. dollar prices using the official

exchange rate in effect for the month of

the comparison U.S. sale.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that the certain of the

home market sales of SSSS 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. Pursuant

to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP

consists of the COM, SG&A, and
37524 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

packing costs. To calculate COP,

petitioners relied on foreign market

research and their own production

experience, adjusted for known

differences between costs incurred to

produce SSSS in the United States and

in the foreign market. We relied on the

cost data contained in the petition

except in the following instances: (1)

rather than rely on the foreign market

research for raw material consumption

rates, we recalculated raw materials

costs using the submitted average

domestic industry material costs in the

petition adjusted for known differences

in raw material input prices between the

U.S. and Germany based on market

research (in this regard, we consider it

more appropriate to rely on actual raw

material usage rates from a producer of

the merchandise rather than

hypothetical rates derived from foreign

market research); and (2) we

recalculated fixed overhead using

Krupp’s 1997 audited financial

statements.

Based on our analysis, certain of the

home market sales reported in the

petition were shown to be made at

prices below the cost of production (see

Initiation of Cost Investigations). For

these sales, petitioners based NV on the

CV of the merchandise, pursuant to

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

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV

consists of the COM, SG&A expenses,

packing costs and profit of the

merchandise. To calculate the COM,

SG&A, and packing costs for CV,

petitioners followed the same

methodology used to determine COP.

Accordingly, we relied on this

methodology after adjusting certain cost

elements as noted above. Petitioners

derived profit for Krupp based on

amounts reported in Krupp’s 1997

financial statements.

The estimated dumping margins,

based on a comparison between Krupp’s

U.S. price and the adjusted CV, range

from 32.67 to 41.98 percent. Based on a

comparison of EP to home market price,

petitioners calculated dumping margins

ranging from 11.81 to 17.46 percent.

Italy

Petitioners identified Arinox Srl

(Arinox) and Acciai Speciali Terni SpA

(AST) as possible exporters and

producers of SSSS from Italy.

Petitioners relied on price information

for AST, which, according to

petitioners, accounts for 99 percent of

exports of SSSS exported to the United

States from Italy. Petitioners based EP

on U.S. sales prices obtained by

petitioners for sales to an unaffiliated

purchaser from June through October

1997. See petitioners’ affidavit,

submitted as petition Exhibit 20.

Petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by

subtracting amounts for foreign inland

freight (see Declaration of {Foreign

Market Researcher} Regarding Sales

and Production Cost in Italy of Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 3

of petitioners’ June 15, 1998

submission), U.S. inland freight (see

petitioners’ affidavit, submitted as

petition Exhibit 20), international

freight and insurance based on average

import charges reported in the official

U.S. import statistics for 1997 for

HTSUS categories 7219 and 7220, U.S.

merchandise processing fees and U.S.

harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23

and 24.24, respectively), and estimated

costs for U.S. import duties based on

1997 and 1998 HTSUS schedules.

Imputed credit was also deducted from

export price for the price-to-price

comparison, using the lending rate as

published in ‘‘International Financial

Statistics’’ of the International Monetary

Fund, April 1998. Petitioners added an

alloy surcharge for certain U.S. sales

(see petitioners’ affidavit submitted as

Attachment 1 of Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils from Italy, June 19,

1998).

With respect to NV, based on foreign

market research, petitioners determined

that the volume of Italian home market

sales was sufficient to form a basis for

NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act. Petitioners obtained from

foreign market research gross unit prices

for products offered for sale in the

second, third and fourth quarters of

1997 to customers in Italy which are

either identical or similar to those sold

to the United States. Petitioners

adjusted these prices by subtracting

inland freight (see Declaration of

{Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding

Sales and Production Cost in Italy of

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils,

Exhibit 1 of petitioners’ June 15, 1998

submission), and imputed credit

expenses based on ‘‘International

Financial Statistics’’ of the International

Monetary Fund, April 1998. Petitioners

added an alloy surcharge for certain

home market sales (see petitioners’

affidavit submitted as Attachment 1 of

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils

from Italy, June 19, 1998). Petitioners

did not adjust for packing costs because

petitioners claim that data for packing

for U.S. sales is not available. These net

home market prices were then

converted to U.S. dollar prices using the

official exchange rate in effect for the

month of the comparison U.S. sale.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that certain of the

home market sales of SSSS 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. Pursuant

to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP

consists of the COM, SG&A expenses,

and packing costs. To calculate COP,

petitioners relied on foreign market

research and their own production

experience, adjusted for known

differences between costs incurred to

produce SSSS in the United States and

in the foreign market. We relied on the

cost data contained in the petition

except in the following instance. We did

not rely on the foreign market research

for raw material consumption rates.

Instead, we recalculated raw materials

costs in the petition using the submitted

average domestic industry material costs

adjusted for known differences in raw

material input prices between the U.S.

and Italy based on market research (in

this regard, we consider it more

appropriate to rely on actual raw

material usage rates from a producer of

the merchandise rather than

hypothetical rates derived from foreign

market research).

Based on our analysis, certain of the

home market sales reported in the

petition were shown to be made at

prices below the cost of production (see

Initiation of Cost Investigations). For

these sales, petitioners based NV on the

CV of the merchandise, pursuant to

sections 773(a)(4) and 773(b) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV

consists of the COM, SG&A expenses,

packing costs and profit for the

merchandise. To calculate the COM,

SG&A expenses, and packing costs for

CV, petitioners followed the same

methodology used to determine COP.

Accordingly, we relied on this

methodology after adjusting certain cost

elements as noted above. Petitioners

derived profit AST based on amounts

reported in AST’s financial statements.

The estimated dumping margins,

based on a comparison between AST’s

U.S. price and the adjusted CV, range

from 0.15 to 35.54 percent. Based on a

comparison of EP to home market price,

petitioners calculate dumping margins

ranging from 6.02 to 18.77 percent.

Japan

Petitioners identified Kawasaki Steel

Corp., Nippon Steel Corporation,

Nisshin Steel Co. Ltd., Nippon Yakin

Kogyo, Nippon Metal Industries, and

Sumitomo Metal Industries as possible

exporters of SSSS from Japan.

Petitioners further identified Nisshin,

Kawasaki, and Nippon Steel as the three

largest producers of subject

merchandise in Japan. Petitioners based
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37525

EP on U.S. sales prices from Sumitomo

Metal Industries and Marubeni of

America, a Japanese trading company

that sells on behalf of Japanese

producers in the United States, to

unaffiliated trading companies in the

United States in the fourth quarter of

1997 and the first quarter of 1998. See

petitioners’ affidavit, submitted as

Exhibit 3 of Stainless Steel Sheet and

Strip in Coils from France and Japan,

June 9, 1998. Because the terms of the

U.S. sales were delivered to the U.S.

customer, petitioners calculated a net

U.S. price by subtracting estimated costs

for shipment from the Japanese factory

to the port of export based on foreign

market research. See Declaration of

{Foreign Market Researcher} Regarding

Sales in Japan of Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 4 of

petitioners’ June 15, 1998 submission.

In addition, petitioners subtracted ocean

freight and insurance based on official

U.S. import statistics, and estimated

costs for U.S. import duties and fees

based on the 1997 and 1998 HTSUS

schedules. Petitioners also subtracted

amounts for the U.S. merchandise

processing fees and U.S. harbor

maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23 and

24.24, respectively). Finally, petitioners

obtained net U.S. prices by subtracting

costs incurred to transport the

merchandise from the U.S. port to the

customer’s location in the United States

(see petitioners’ affidavit submitted as

petition Exhibit 11), and credit

expenses.

With respect to NV, based on foreign

market research, petitioners determined

that volume of Japan home market sales

from Kawasaki Steel Corp., Nippon

Steel Corporation, and Nisshin Steel Co.

Ltd. was sufficient to form a basis for

NV, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act. See Declaration of {Foreign

Market Researcher} Regarding Sales in

Japan of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip

in Coils, Exhibit 4 of petitioners’ June

15, 1998 submission. Petitioners

obtained gross unit prices from foreign

market research for the products offered

for sale in the fourth quarter of 1997 and

the first quarter of 1998 to customers in

Japan which are identical to those sold

to the United States. Petitioners

adjusted these prices by subtracting

estimated average delivery costs and

credit expenses based on foreign market

research. See Declaration of {Foreign

Market Researcher} Regarding Sales in

Japan of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip

in Coils, Exhibit 4 of petitioners’ June

15, 1998 submission. These net home

market prices were then converted to

U.S. dollar prices using the official

exchange rate in effect for the month of

the comparison U.S. sale.

The estimated dumping margins in

the petition, based on a comparison of

EP to home market prices, range from

19.9 to 57.87 percent.

Mexico

Petitioners identified Mexinox, S.A.

de C.V. (Mexinox) as the exporter of

subject merchandise from Mexico.

Petitioners further identified Mexinox

as the sole producer of subject

merchandise in Mexico.

Petitioners based EP on prices

obtained from foreign market

researchers for sales by Mexinox of

grades 304 and 430 stainless steel in

coils to the United States between the

third quarter of 1997 and the first

quarter of 1998. See petitioners’

affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit

13. One sale had an alloy surcharge.

For the delivered sales, petitioners

subtracted estimated U.S. inland freight

charges, based on the experience of one

petitioner. For all the U.S. sales,

petitioners subtracted amounts for

international freight and insurance,

based on ‘‘import charges’’ in IM146

import statistics. Petitioners subtracted

amounts for U.S. import duties based on

the 1997 import duty rate of 6 percent

of dutiable value, or the 1998 rate of 5

percent, as appropriate. Petitioners also

subtracted amounts for U.S.

merchandise processing fees of 0.19

percent of dutiable value (19 CFR

section 24.23). Petitioners did not adjust

for the U.S. harbor maintenance fee on

the assumption that the exported

product would have been shipped

overland. Petitioners did not adjust for

U.S. handling or packing costs, though

these charges were included in the

quoted U.S. prices, and did not adjust

for imputed credit expenses.

With regard to NV, based on foreign

market research, petitioners determined

that the volume of Mexican home

market sales was sufficient to form a

basis for NV, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. See

Declaration of {Foreign Market

Researcher}, Exhibit 5 of petitioners’

June 15, 1998 submission. Petitioners

obtained from foreign market research

gross unit prices for products offered for

sale in the first quarter of 1998 to

customers in Mexico which are either

identical or similar to those sold in the

United States. Petitioners did not

subtract credit expenses or make any

adjustments to price, other than

converting the unit of measure from

metric tons to pounds. These net home

market prices were then converted to

U.S. dollar prices using the official

exchange rate in effect for the month of

the comparison U.S. sale.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that certain of the

home market sales of SSSS 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. Pursuant

to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP

consists of the COM, SG&A, and

packing costs. To calculate COP,

petitioners relied on their own

production experience, adjusted for

known differences between costs

incurred to produce SSSS in the United

States and the foreign market. For

certain costs, petitioners used the

financial statement information from

Hylsamex, a Mexican steel producer,

because they were unable to obtain

Mexinox’s financial statements. For raw

material costs, petitioners used their

own operating experience as the only

information reasonably available.

Petitioner’s calculated SG&A, and

financial expenses from Hylsamex’s

1997 consolidated financial statements.

Based on our analysis, certain of the

home market sales reported in the

petition were shown to be made at

prices below the cost of production (see

Initiation of Cost Investigations). For

these sales, petitioners based NV on the

CV of the merchandise, pursuant to

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

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV

consists of the COM, SG&A expenses,

packing costs and profit of the

merchandise. To calculate the COM,

SG&A expenses, and packing costs for

CV, petitioners followed the same

methodology used to determine COP.

Accordingly, we relied on the

methodology presented in the June 24,

1998 submission. Petitioners derived

profit based on amounts reported in

Hylsamex’s 1997 consolidated financial

statements.

The estimated dumping margins in

the petition (as amended), based on a

comparison between Mexinox’s U.S.

prices and CV, range from 30.09 to 41.17

percent. Based on a comparison of EP to

home market prices, petitioners’

calculated dumping margins range from

37.58 to 51.95 percent.

Republic of Korea

Petitioners identified Pohang Iron and

Steel Company (POSCO), Sammi Steel

Company (Sammi), and Inchon Iron and

Steel Company (Inchon) as producers

and possible exporters of SSSS from the

Republic of Korea. Petitioners based EP

on price quotations obtained by

petitioning companies for sales to
37526 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

unaffiliated U.S. purchasers of SSSS

manufactured by POSCO. See

petitioners’ affidavit, submitted as

petition Exhibit 24. The quoted prices

were for delivered, duty paid SSSS sold

during the third quarter of 1997.

Petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by

subtracting from the reported U.S. price

shipment costs from POSCO’s factory in

Korea to the port of export estimated

from foreign market research (see

Declaration of {Foreign Market

Researcher} Regarding Sales in Korea of

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils,

Exhibit 6 of petitioners’ June 15, 1998

submission), costs for ocean freight and

insurance based on the average import

charges reported in official U.S. import

statistics for Korea, import duties based

on the 1997 HTSUS schedule,

merchandise processing and harbor

maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23 and

24.24, respectively) and domestic inland

freight (see petitioners’ affidavit,

submitted as petition Exhibit 27).

With regard to NV, based on foreign

market research, petitioners determined

that the volume of South Korean home

market sales in 1997 was sufficient to

form a basis for NV, pursuant to section

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

Declaration of {Foreign Market

Researcher} Regarding Sales in Korea of

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils,

Exhibit 6 of petitioners’ June 15, 1998

submission. Petitioners obtained from

foreign market research gross unit prices

for SSSS 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 based on foreign market

research. See Declaration of {Foreign

Market Researcher} Regarding Sales in

Korea of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip

in Coils, Exhibit 6 of petitioners’ June

15, 1998 submission. These net home

market prices were then converted to

U.S. dollar prices using the official

exchange rate in effect for the month of

the comparison U.S. sale.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that certain of the

home market sales of SSSS 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. Pursuant

to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP

consists of the COM, SG&A expenses,

and packing costs. To calculate COP,

petitioners relied on foreign market

research and their own production

experience, adjusted for known

differences between costs incurred to

produce SSSS in the United States and

in the foreign market. We relied on the

cost data contained in the petition

except in the following instances: (1)

rather than rely on the foreign market

research for raw material consumption

rates, we recalculated raw materials

costs in the petition using the submitted

average domestic industry material costs

adjusted for known differences in raw

material input prices between the U.S.

and Korea based on market research (in

this regard, we consider it more

appropriate to rely on actual raw

material usage rates from a producer of

the merchandise rather than

hypothetical rates derived from foreign

market research); and (2) we revised the

SG&A and net financing expenses based

on POSCO’s 1997 audited financial

statements.

Based on our analysis, certain of the

home market sales reported in the

petition were shown to be made at

prices below the cost of production (see

Initiation of Cost Investigations). For

these sales, petitioners based NV on the

CV of the merchandise, pursuant to

sections 773(a)(4) and 773. (e) of the

Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of the

Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A

expenses, packing costs and profit of the

merchandise. To calculate the COM,

SG&A expenses, and packing costs for

CV, petitioners followed the same

methodology to determine COP.

Accordingly, we relied on this

methodology after adjusting certain cost

elements as noted above. Petitioners

derived profit for POSCO based on

amounts reported in POSCO’s 1997

financial statements.

Based on comparisons of EP to

adjusted CV, estimated margins range

from 18.40 to 58.79 percent. Based on a

comparison of EP to home market price,

estimated dumping margins range from

5.58 to 13.05 percent.

Taiwan

Petitioners identified 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 SSSS

from Taiwan. Petitioners based EP on

price quotations made to unaffiliated

U.S. purchasers prior to the date of

importation. See petitioners’ affidavit,

submitted as petition Exhibit 22. The

quoted prices were for delivered and

duty paid SSSS produced by Tung

Mung, Yieh United and Tang Eng

during the third and fourth quarter of

1997 and the first quarter of 1998.

Petitioners calculated net U.S. price by

subtracting amounts for U.S. inland

freight (see petitioners’ affidavit,

submitted as petition Exhibit 22),

international freight and marine

insurance based on the average import

charges reported in the official U.S.

import statistics for stainless steel

products under the 1997 HTSUS

categories 7219 and 7220, U.S. import

duties based on the 1997 HTSUS

schedule, and foreign inland freight (see

Declaration of {Foreign Market

Researcher} Regarding Sales in Taiwan

of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in

Coils, Exhibit 7 of petitioners’ June 15,

1998 submission). Petitioners also

subtracted amounts for U.S.

merchandise processing fees and U.S.

harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR 24.23

and 24.24, respectively). Petitioners

calculated imputed credit expenses for

these U.S. sales by using 30 days as the

term of payment (see petitioners’

affidavit, submitted as petition Exhibit

22) and the average lending rate of 8.25

percent for the period April 1997

through March 1998, as published in

‘‘International Financial Statistics’’ of

the International Monetary Fund, April

1998. Finally, petitioners did not adjust

for differences in U.S. and home market

packing expenses because those data

were not available for U.S. sales.

With respect to NV, based on foreign

market research, petitioners determined

that the volume of Taiwanese home

market sales was sufficient to form a

basis for NV, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. See

Declaration of {Foreign Market

Researcher} Regarding Sales in Taiwan

of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in

Coils, Exhibit 7 of petitioners’ June 15,

1998 submission. Petitioners obtained

from foreign market research gross unit

prices for sales of SSSS by Tung Mung,

Yieh United, and Tang Eng which are

either identical or similar to those sold

to the United States. To arrive at each

net home market price for price-to-price

comparison purposes, petitioners

adjusted the gross prices by subtracting

amounts for foreign inland freight (see

Declaration of {Foreign Market

Researcher} Regarding Sales in Taiwan

of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in

Coils, Exhibit 7 of petitioners’ June 15,

1998 submission) and imputed credit

expenses. Finally, petitioners converted

the home market prices from New

Taiwan dollars to U.S. dollars based on

the exchange rate published by the

Federal Reserve Bank of New York for

the month in which each sale took

place.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that certain of the

home market sales of SSSS provided in

the petition were made at prices below

COP, within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act, and requested that the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices 37527

Department conduct a country-wide

sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant

to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP

consists of COM, SG&A, and packing

costs. To calculate COP, petitioners

relied on foreign market research and

their own production experience,

adjusted for known differences between

costs incurred to produce SSSS in the

United States and in the foreign market.

We relied on the cost data contained in

the petition except in the following

instances: (1) rather than rely on the

foreign market research for raw material

consumption rates for Tang Eng and

Yieh United, we recalculated raw

materials costs in the petition using the

submitted average domestic industry

material costs adjusted for known

differences in raw material input prices

between the U.S. and Taiwan based on

market research for Tang Eng and Yieh

United (in this regard, we consider it

more appropriate to rely on actual raw

material usage rates from a producer of

the merchandise rather than

hypothetical usage rates derived from

foreign market research); and (2) we

have not relied on the costs for Tang

Mung because petitioners failed to

address market price differences

between the U.S. and Taiwan for the

type of raw material used by Tang

Mung. For amounts where there was no

company specific information we used

the average of the amounts for

companies where there was information

available.

Based on our analysis, certain of the

home market sales reported in the

petition were shown to be made at

prices below the cost of production (see

Initiation of Cost Investigations). For

these sales, petitioners based NV on the

CV of the merchandise, pursuant to

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

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV

consists of the COM, SG&A expenses,

packing costs and profit. To calculate

the COM, SG&A expenses, and packing

costs for CV, petitioners followed the

same methodology used to determine

COP. Accordingly, we relied on this

methodology after adjusting certain cost

elements as noted above. We derived

profit for Tang Eng and Yieh United

using the company-specific financial

statements where the financial

statements showed a profit, otherwise

we used the average profit from the

other companies showing a profit on

their financial statements.

Based on comparisons of EP to

adjusted CV, estimated margins range

from 12.74 to 55.01 percent. The

estimated dumping margins in the

petition, based on a comparison

between U.S. prices and home market

price, range from 8.23 to 77.08 percent.

United Kingdom

Petitioners identified two United

Kingdom producers and exporters of

SSSS: Avesta Sheffield Ltd. (AS) and

Lee Steel Strip Ltd. (Lee). Petitioners

noted that, to the best of their

knowledge, AS accounted for 90 percent

of the exports of subject merchandise

from the United Kingdom. Petitioners

based EP for AS on U.S. sales to

unaffiliated U.S. purchasers in the third

and fourth quarter of 1997. See

petitioners’ affidavit, submitted as

petition Exhibit 15. Because the terms of

AS’s U.S. sales were delivered to the

U.S. customer, petitioners calculated the

net U.S. price by adding alloy

surcharges (see petitioners’ affidavit,

submitted as petition Exhibit 15) and

subtracting estimated costs of shipment

from AS’s factory in the United

Kingdom to the port of export (see

Declaration of Foreign Market

Researcher Regarding Sales in the

United Kingdom of Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 8 of

petitioners’ June 15, 1998 submission).

Petitioners also subtracted ocean freight

and insurance based on official U.S.

import statistics, U.S. import duties

based on the 1997 HTSUS schedule, and

U.S. merchandise processing fees and

U.S. harbor maintenance fees (19 CFR,

sections 24.23 and 24.24, respectively).

Finally, petitioners calculated net U.S.

price for AS by subtracting costs

incurred to transport the stainless steel

sheet and strip from the U.S. port to the

customer’s location in the United States

(see petitioners’ affidavit, submitted as

petition Exhibit 18).

With respect to NV, based on

information available to them,

petitioners determined that volume in

the United Kingdom in 1997 is

sufficient to form a basis for normal

value, pursuant to Section 773(a)(1) of

the Act. Petitioners obtained from

foreign market research gross unit prices

for AS for representative grades,

thicknesses, finishes, and widths of

subject merchandise. Petitioners

adjusted these prices by adding an

amount for alloy surcharge and

subtracting amounts for foreign inland

freight and imputed home market credit

expenses. See Declaration of Foreign

Market Researcher Regarding Sales in

the United Kingdom of Stainless Steel

Sheet and Strip in Coils, Exhibit 8 of

petitioners’ June 15, 1998 submission.

Imputed U.S. credit was added to the

net home market price for the price-toprice comparisons. These net home

market prices were then converted to

U.S. dollar prices using the official

exchange rate in effect for the month of

the comparison U.S. sale.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that certain of the

home market sales of SSSS 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. Pursuant

to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP

consists of the COM, SG&A expenses,

and packing costs. To calculate COP,

petitioners relied on foreign market

research and their own production

experience, adjusted for known

differences between costs incurred to

produce SSSS in the United States and

in the foreign market. We relied on the

cost data contained in the petition

except in the following instances: (1) we

did not rely on the foreign market

research for raw material consumption

rates. Instead, we recalculated raw

materials costs in the petition using the

submitted average domestic industry

material costs adjusted for known

differences in raw material input prices

between the U.S. and the United

Kingdom based on market research. In

this regard, we consider it more

appropriate to rely on actual raw

material usage rates from a producer of

the merchandise rather than

hypothetical rates derived from foreign

market research; (2) we revised the

SG&A expense using British Steel’s

1997 audited financial statements; (3)

we revised net financing expenses to

include an offset for short term interest

income.

Based on an analysis, certain of the

home market sales reflected in the

petition were shown to be made at

prices below the cost of production (see

Initiation of Cost Investigations). For

these sales, petitioners based NV on the

CV of the merchandise, pursuant to

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

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV

consists of the COM, SG&A, packing

costs, and profit of the merchandise. To

calculate COM, SG&A, and packing

costs for CV, petitioners followed the

same methodology used to determine

COP. Accordingly, we relied on this

methodology after adjusting certain cost

elements as noted above. Petitioners

derived profit based on amounts

reported in British Steel’s 1997 financial

statements.

Based on comparisons of EP to

adjusted CV, estimated margins range

from 5.42 to 14.76 percent. Based on a

comparison of EP to home market

prices, estimated dumping margins

range from 9.99 to 29.37 percent.
37528 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 133 / Monday, July 13, 1998 / Notices

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 France, Germany, Italy,

Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom 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 (see country-specific

sections above).

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of SSSS from France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the

Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom are being, or are likely

to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petitions allege 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’s 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

supported by accurate and adequate

evidence and meet the statutory

requirements for initiation (see

Attachments to Initiation Checklist, Re:

Material Injury, June 30, 1998).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based upon our examination of the

petitions on SSSS, as well as our

discussion with the authors of the

foreign market research reports (See,

memoranda to the file, dated June 30,

1998), we have found that the petitions

meet the requirements of section 732 of

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of SSSS

from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan,

and the United Kingdom 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

November 17, 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

provided to the representatives of

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico,

the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom. 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 July 27,

1998, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of SSSS from

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico,

the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom are causing material

injury, or threatening to cause material

injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative

ITC determination for any country will

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: June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18602 Filed 7–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A–570–815]

Sulfanilic Acid 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 sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China. The review covers exports of this

merchandise to the United States for the

period August 1, 1996 through July 31,

1997, and thirteen firms: China National

Chemical Import and Export

Corporation, Hebei Branch (Sinochem

Hebei); China National Chemical

Construction Corporation, Beijing

Branch; China National Chemical

Construction Corporation, Qingdao

Branch; Sinochem Qingdao; Sinochem

Shandong; Baoding No. 3 Chemical

Factory; Jinxing Chemical Factory;

Zhenxing Chemical Factory; Mancheng

Xinyu Chemical Factory, Shijiazhuang;

Mancheng Zinyu Chemical Factory,

Bejing; Hainan Garden Trading

Company; Yude Chemical Company and

Shunping Lile. The preliminary results

of this review indicate that there were

dumping margins for the two

responding parties: Yude Chemical

Company (Yude) and Zhenxing

Chemical Factory (Zhenxing), and for

the ‘‘PRC enterprise.’’

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.