Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22183

The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’

means that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value (see SAA at

870). The SAA also states that

independent sources used to corroborate

such evidence may include, for

example, published price lists, official

import statistics and Customs data, and

information obtained from interested

parties during the particular

investigation (see SAA at 870).

We reviewed the adequacy and

accuracy of the information in the

petition during our pre-initiation

analysis of the petition, to the extent

appropriate information was available

for this purpose. See Import

Administration AD Investigation

Initiation Checklist, dated December 4,

2000, for a discussion of the margin

calculation in the petition. In addition,

in order to determine the probative

value of the margin in the petition for

use as adverse facts available for

purposes of this determination, we

examined evidence supporting the

calculation in the petition. In

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, to the extent practicable, we

examined the key elements of the export

price (EP) and normal value (NV)

calculations on which the margin in the

petition was based. Our review of the EP

and NV calculation indicated that the

information in the petition has

probative value, as certain information

(e.g., international freight and customs

duties) included in the margin

calculation in the petition is from public

sources concurrent, for the most part,

with the POI.

We compared the export prices

contained in the petition with U.S.

Census values for the same HTS

category and found the export prices

suggested in the petition to be

reasonable and, therefore, corroborated

for purposes of calculating a facts

available margin. With respect to the NV

data included in the margin calculations

of the petition, we were able to

corroborate the reasonableness of these

data through the use of multiple

sources. See the April 23 memorandum

titled Application of Facts Available for

Siderar Saic.

All-Others Rate

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act

provides that, where the estimated

weighted-average dumping margins

established for all exporters and

producers individually investigated are

zero or de minimis margins, or are

determined entirely under section 776

of the Act, the Department may use any

reasonable method to establish the

estimated ‘‘all-others’’ rate for exporters

and producers not individually

investigated. Our recent practice under

these circumstances has been to assign,

as the ‘‘all-others’’ rate, the simple

average of the margins in the petition.

We have done so in this case.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing Customs to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

HRS from Argentina that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct Customs to

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the amount by which

the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in

the chart below. We will adjust the

deposit requirements to account for any

export subsidies found in the

companion countervailing duty

investigation. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Siderar Saic (Siderar) ............... 44.59

All Others .................................. 40.60

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final antidumping

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

The deadline for that ITC determination

would be the later of 120 days after the

date of this preliminary determination

or 45 days after the date of our final

determination.

Public Comment

Case briefs must be submitted no later

than 35 days after the publication of this

notice in the Federal Register. Rebuttal

briefs must be filed within five business

days after the deadline for submission of

case briefs. A list of authorities used, a

table of contents, and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Executive summaries should be limited

to five pages total, including footnotes.

Public versions of all comments and

rebuttals should be provided to the

Department and made available on

diskette.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In

the event that the Department receives

requests for hearings from parties to

more than one HRS case, the

Department may schedule a single

hearing to encompass all cases. Parties

should confirm by telephone the time,

date, and place of the hearing 48 hours

before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination in this investigation no

later than 75 days after the date of this

preliminary determination.

This determination is published

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

of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001,

Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the

duties of the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10852 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–865]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Bertrand, Carrie Blozy, or

Doreen Chen, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3207, (202) 482–0165, and (202)

482–0193, respectively.

22184 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

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

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

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

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products from the People’s Republic of

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

be, sold in the United States at less than

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in

section 733 of the Act. The estimated

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section

of this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on

December 4, 2000. See Notice of

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Argentina, India, Indonesia,

Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the

People’s Republic of China, Romania,

South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Ukraine, 65 FR 77568 (December 12,

2000). The Department set aside a

period for all interested parties to raise

issues regarding product coverage. See

Notice of Initiation, at 77569. We

received comments regarding product

coverage as follows: from Duracell

Global Business Management Group on

December 11, 2000; from Energizer on

December 15, 2000; from Bouffard Metal

Goods Inc. and Truelove & MacLean,

Inc. on December 18, 2000; from the

Corus Group plc., which includes Corus

Steel USA (CSUSA) and Corus Staal BV

(Corus Staal), and Thomas Steel Strip on

December 26, 2000; and from Rayovac

Corporation on March 12, 2001. Since

the initiation of this investigation the

following events have occurred.

On December 20, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) requested information

from the U.S. Embassy in the PRC to

identify producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise and received a

response in January 2001.

On December 22, 2000, the

Department issued a letter to interested

parties in all of the concurrent certain

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products

antidumping investigations, providing

an opportunity to comment on the

Department’s proposed model matching

characteristics and hierarchy.

Comments were submitted by:

petitioners (January 5, 2001); Corus

Staal BV and Corus Steel USA Inc.,

collectively referred to as Corus,

respondent in the Netherlands

investigation (January 3, 2001); Iscor

Limited, respondent in the South Africa

investigation (January 3, 2001); and

Zaporizhstal, respondent in the Ukraine

investigation (January 3, 2001).

Petitioners agreed with the

Department’s proposed characteristics

and hierarchy of characteristics. Corus

suggested adding a product

characteristic to distinguish prime

merchandise from non-prime

merchandise. Neither Iscor nor

Zaporizhstal proposed any changes to

either the list of product characteristics

proposed by the Department or the

hierarchy of those product

characteristics but, rather, provided

information relating to its own products

that was not relevant in the context of

determining what information to

include in the Department’s

questionnaires. For purposes of the

questionnaires subsequently issued by

the Department to the respondents, no

changes were made to the product

characteristics or the hierarchy of those

characteristics from those originally

proposed by the Department in its

December 22, 2000 letter. With respect

to Corus’ request, the additional product

characteristic suggested by Corus, to

distinguish prime merchandise from

non-prime merchandise, is unnecessary.

The Department already asks

respondents to distinguish prime from

non-prime merchandise in field number

2.2 ‘‘Prime vs. Secondary Merchandise.’’

See the Department’s Antidumping

Duty Questionnaire, at C–5 (January 4,

2001).

On December 29, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) issued its affirmative

preliminary determination that there is

a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports of the

subject merchandise from the PRC,

which was published on January 4,

2001. See Hot-Rolled Steel Products

from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia,

Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Romania,

South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Ukraine, 66 FR 805 (January 4, 2001)

(‘‘ITC Preliminary Determination’’).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued its antidumping questionnaire to

the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade &

Economic Cooperation with a letter

requesting that it forward the

questionnaire to all Chinese exporters of

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products who had shipments during the

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). We also

sent courtesy copies of the antidumping

questionnaire to the following possible

producers/exporters of subject

merchandise named in the petition:

Anshan Iron & Steel (Group) Co.,

Anyang Iron and Steel Group, Shanghai

Baosteel Group Corp., Benxi Iron and

Steel Group Co., Laiwu Iron and Steel

Group, and Wuhan Iron and Steel Group

Co.

On January 25 and 26, 2001, the

following Chinese producers/exporters

of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products submitted information on the

quantity and value of their shipments of

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POI: Angang Group

International Trade Corporation, New

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., and Angang

Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd. (collectively

‘‘Angang’’), Shanghai Baosteel Group

Corporation, Baoshan Iron and Steel

Co., Ltd., and Baosteel Group

International Trade Corporation

(collectively ‘‘Baosteel Group’’), Benxi

Iron & Steel Group International

Economic & Trade Co., Ltd., Bengang

Steel Plates Co., Ltd., and Benxi Iron &

Steel Group Co., Ltd. (collectively

‘‘Benxi’’), Pangang Group International

Economic & Trading Corporation and

Panzhihua Iron & Steel (Group)

Company (collectively ‘‘Panzhihua’’),

Wuhan Iron & Steel (Group) Corporation

and International Economic and Trading

Corp. Wugang Group (collectively

‘‘WISCO’’), and Shanghai Yi Chang

Steel Strip Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yi Chang’’).

On February 6, 2001, we selected

Angang, Baosteel Group, Benxi, and Yi

Chang as the mandatory respondents

(see ‘‘Selection of Respondents’’ below).

We received complete Section A

responses from Angang, Baosteel Group,

Benxi, Panzhihua, WISCO, and Yi

Chang on February 8, 2001.

On February 16, 2001, the Department

issued a supplemental questionnaire to

Yi Chang concerning the relationship

between Baosteel Group and Yi Chang.

Also, on February 16, 2001, the

Department issued a letter to Baosteel

Group concerning the submission of

Section D questionnaire responses for

certain wholly-owned firms of Baosteel

Group, which during some or all of the

POI produced merchandise meeting the

physical description of the merchandise

described in Appendix III to the

Department’s January 4, 2001

antidumping questionnaire (see

‘‘Baosteel Group-Wholly Owned

Suppliers of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products,’’ below, for further

discussion of this issue). On February

22, 2001, the Department issued section

A supplemental questionnaires to

Angang, Benxi, Baosteel Group, and Yi

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22185

Chang and received responses on March

8, 2001. On February 26, 2001,

respondents submitted their responses

to sections C and D to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. On

February 28, 2001, the Department

issued a letter to Yi Chang requesting

that Yi Chang identify all unique

products or models produced by Yi

Chang during the POI that meet the

physical description of the merchandise

described in Appendix III to the

Departments’ January 4, 2001

antidumping questionnaire. Yi Chang

submitted this information on March 7,

2001. On March 12, 2001, the

Department issued supplemental

questionnaires to Angang, Benxi,

Baosteel Group, and Yi Chang and

received responses to these

questionnaires on April 2, 2001. On

March 12, 2001, Baosteel Group

submitted section D questionnaire

responses for certain wholly-owned

firms of the Baosteel Group, which

during part or all of the POI produced

merchandise meeting the physical

description of the merchandise

described in Appendix III to the

Department’s January 4, 2001

antidumping questionnaire. On March

27, 2001, the Department issued a

supplemental section D questionnaire to

Baosteel Group, following its March 12,

2001 section D response, and received a

response on April 10, 2001. Petitioners

filed comments on respondents’

submissions in March 2001.

On January 31, 2001, we requested

publicly-available information for

valuing the factors of production and

comments on surrogate country

selection. On February 14, 2001, we

received comments from petitioners on

the appropriate surrogate country. On

March 23, 2001, Baosteel Group

submitted information concerning

surrogate values to be used for valuing

the factors of production. On March 26

and March 30, 2001, petitioners and

respondents Angang and Benxi,

respectively, submitted information

concerning surrogate values for use in

valuing the factors of production. On

April 5 and 6, petitioners and

respondents Baosteel Group and Yi

Chang, respectively, submitted rebuttal

comments on surrogate values.

Period of Investigation

The POI is April 1, 2000 through

September 30, 2000. This period

corresponds to the two most recent

fiscal quarters prior to the month of the

filing of the petition (November 13,

2000). 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products of a

rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal and whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other non-metallic

substances, in coils (whether or not in

successively superimposed layers),

regardless of thickness, and in straight

lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75

mm and of a width measuring at least

10 times the thickness. Universal mill

plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on

four faces or in a closed box pass, of a

width exceeding 150 mm, but not

exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness

of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and

without patterns in relief) of a thickness

not less than 4.0 mm is not included

within the scope of this investigation.

Specifically included within the

scope of this investigation are vacuum

degassed, fully stabilized (commonly

referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels,

high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels,

and the substrate for motor lamination

steels. IF steels are recognized as low

carbon steels with micro-alloying levels

of elements such as titanium or niobium

(also commonly referred to as

columbium), or both, added to stabilize

carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA

steels are recognized as steels with

micro-alloying levels of elements such

as chromium, copper, niobium,

vanadium, and molybdenum. The

substrate for motor lamination steels

contains micro-alloying levels of

elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the

scope of this investigation, regardless of

definitions in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS),

are products in which: (i) Iron

predominates, by weight, over each of

the other contained elements; (ii) the

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by

weight; and (iii) none of the elements

listed below exceeds the quantity, by

weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or

2.25 percent of silicon, or

1.00 percent of copper, or

0.50 percent of aluminum, or

1.25 percent of chromium, or

0.30 percent of cobalt, or

0.40 percent of lead, or

1.25 percent of nickel, or

0.30 percent of tungsten, or

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

0.10 percent of niobium, or

0.15 percent of vanadium, or

0.15 percent of zirconium.

All products that meet the physical

and chemical description provided

above are within the scope of this

investigation unless otherwise

excluded. The following products, by

way of example, are outside or

specifically excluded from the scope of

this investigation:

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in

which at least one of the chemical

elements exceeds those listed above

(including, e.g., American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

specifications A543, A387, A514, A517,

A506).

• Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute

(AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the

HTSUS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the

HTSUS.

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the

HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with

a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.

• ASTM specifications A710 and

A736.

• USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS

AR 400, USS AR 500).

• All products (proprietary or

otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM

specification (sample specifications:

ASTM A506, A507).

• Non-rectangular shapes, not in

coils, which are the result of having

been processed by cutting or stamping

and which have assumed the character

of articles or products classified outside

chapter 72 of the HTSUS.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the HTSUS

at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,

7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,

7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,

7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,

7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,

7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,

7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,

7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,

7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,

7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,

7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,

7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90,

7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,

7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00,

7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,

7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90.

Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products covered by this investigation,

including: vacuum degassed fully

stabilized; high strength low alloy; and

the substrate for motor lamination steel

may also enter under the following tariff

numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00,

7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,

7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,

7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,

7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00,

7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,

22186 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and

7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise

may also enter under 7210.70.30.00,

7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,

7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and

7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs

the Department to calculate individual

dumping margins for each known

exporter and producer of the subject

merchandise. However, section

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the

Department discretion, when faced with

a large number of exporters/producers,

to limit its examination to a reasonable

number of such companies if it is not

practicable to examine all companies.

Where it is not practicable to examine

all known producers/exporters of

subject merchandise, this provision

permits the Department to investigate

either: (1) a sample of exporters,

producers, or types of products that is

statistically valid based on the

information available at the time of

selection; or (2) exporters and producers

accounting for the largest volume of the

subject merchandise that can reasonably

be examined. After consideration of the

complexities expected to arise in this

proceeding and the resources available

to the Department, we determined that

it was not practicable in this

investigation to examine the six known

producers/exporters of subject

merchandise. Instead, we found that,

given our resources, we would be able

to investigate four Chinese producers/

exporters. Angang, Baosteel Group,

Benxi, and Yi Chang accounted for

almost all exports of the subject

merchandise from the PRC during the

POI, as reported by the six producers/

exporters at the time we made our

respondent selection, and we selected

them as mandatory respondents. See

Memorandum from Edward Yang to

Joseph A. Spetrini Re: Selection of

Respondents, February 6, 2001.

Yi Chang—Country of Origin

In its original section A questionnaire

response, dated February 8, 2001, Yi

Chang stated that ‘‘it produced and sold

the subject merchandise directly and

did not purchase from an unaffiliated

supplier.’’ However, subsequent

responses from Yi Chang on February

26, 2001, March 8, 2001, and April 2,

2001, made clear the following facts:

first, ‘‘during the POI, Yi Chang was

engaged only in the pickling of subject

merchandise’’—it therefore did not melt

steel and as a result, purchased hotrolled carbon steel coils as the input for

its pickling process; second, Yi Chang

purchased its hot-rolled carbon steel

coils from Chinese and third country

suppliers; and third, ‘‘all of the subject

merchandise exported to the United

States during the POI was produced

from imported hot-rolled coils.’’ Finally,

in response to a supplemental question

from the Department concerning the

country of origin markings on the hotrolled carbon steel flat products sold by

Yi Chang to the United States, Yi Chang

stated that because it added value to the

finished product after pickling the hotrolled coils, Yi Chang declared the

product as originating in China. See Yi

Chang April 2, 2001 supplemental

response at page 10.

In determining whether substantial

transformation has occurred for the

purposes of establishing the country of

origin for Yi Chang’s hot-rolled carbon

steel flat products exported to the

United States in this dumping

investigation, we examine whether the

degree of processing or manufacturing

in the PRC resulted in a new and

distinct or different article from the hotrolled steel coils imported from third

country market economy suppliers. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon

Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from India

(‘‘Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from India’’),

60 FR 10545, 10546 (February 27, 1995)

and Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality

Steel Products From Taiwan (‘‘ColdRolled Steel from Taiwan’’), 65 FR

34658 (May 31, 2000). The Department

has also stated in prior determinations

that it is not bound by the country-oforigin and substantial transformation

determinations made by other agencies

of the U.S. government. See, e.g., Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37065 (July 9,

1993). Rather, our determination is

made on the basis of reviewing the

totality of the circumstances presented

to the Department solely for the purpose

of the antidumping proceeding. When

an input from country A is further

processed in country B, without any

change in the class or kind of

merchandise taking place, the

Department normally will consider the

product exported to the United States as

originating in country A. See, e.g., ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from India and ColdRolled Steel from Taiwan. In this case,

the manufacturing process undertaken

by Yi Chang in the PRC did not result

in a change in the class or kind of

merchandise between the third country

hot-rolled steel coils and Yi Chang’s

pickled hot-rolled steel coils. In

addition, although Yi Chang does

perform some processing on the

imported hot-rolled coils (i.e., trimming

and pickling), that further processing

does not result in a substantial

transformation within the context of this

antidumping investigation. The data on

the record indicate that the degree of

transformation in this case is less than

that found in cases in which the product

was deemed to have been transformed

sufficiently to change the origin of the

item. Consequently, for the preliminary

determination, we have denied Yi

Chang’s claims that the country of origin

of the merchandise sold by Yi Chang is

properly the PRC. Because none of the

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products sold

by Yi Chang in the United States during

the POI was of Chinese origin, we

preliminarily find that Yi Chang is not

eligible for an antidumping duty margin

calculation in this investigation of hotrolled carbon steel flat products from

the PRC. Also, we note that we are not

addressing the issue of Yi Chang’s

relationship with the Baosteel Group, as

Yi Chang did not produce any

merchandise which was the same as

that exported to the United States by the

Baosteel Group.

Baosteel Group—Wholly Owned

Suppliers of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products

In its questionnaire responses

Baosteel Group explained that the

subject merchandise it sold to the

United States was exported by Baosteel

Group International Trade Corporation

(‘‘Baosteel International’’), a part of the

Baosteel Group, and was produced by

Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Baoshan Co., Ltd.’’), also a part of the

Baosteel Group, and Baosteel Group

itself. For Baosteel Group’s ownership

percentages in these companies, see

Analysis for the Preliminary

Determination of Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products from the

People’s Republic of China: Shanghai

Baosteel Group Corporation (‘‘Baosteel

Group’’), (‘‘Baosteel Group Analysis

Memorandum’’), dated April 23, 2001.

Additionally, in its section A

questionnaire response Baosteel Group

identified three other wholly-owned

Baosteel Group steel companies that

produced hot-rolled steel products

within the scope of this investigation

during the POI, but stated that they did

not export these products to the United

States. Because the name of these firms

is proprietary, we are referring to these

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22187

1As noted above, Yi Chang is not eligible for a

separate rate because it made no exports of the

subject merchandise to the United States during the

POI.

companies as Firm A, Firm B, and Firm

C. On February 16, 2001, the

Department issued a letter to Baosteel

Group requesting it to ‘‘ensure that

when providing your Section D

information, you submit full Section D

information for all wholly-owned

facilities of the Baosteel Group, which

during some or all of the POI produced

merchandise meeting the physical

description of the merchandise

described in Appendix III to the

Department’s January 4, 2001

antidumping questionnaire to Baosteel.’’

Although objecting to this request,

Baosteel Group nevertheless submitted

section D responses for Firm A and Firm

B on March 12, 2001, and supplemental

responses on April 10, 2001. (In its

March 12, 2001 response, Baosteel

Group stated that Firm C did not

produce or sell any merchandise that

meets the physical description of the

merchandise described in Appendix III

to the Department’s questionnaire.)

The Department requested this

information primarily because the

questionnaire responses for Baosteel

Group have been filed on behalf of

Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation,

Baoshan Co., Ltd., and Baosteel

International. As noted above, both

Baoshan Co., Ltd., which produces the

subject merchandise sold to the United

States, and Baosteel International, the

trading company which sells the subject

merchandise to the United States, are

part of the Shanghai Baosteel Group

Corporation. Moreover, both Firm A and

Firm B are wholly-owned subsidiaries

of the Shanghai Baosteel Group

Corporation. For purposes of its separate

rate analysis, the Department considers

these companies to be one entity.

Because it is the Shanghai Baosteel

Group Corporation as a whole to which

the Department has preliminarily

granted a separate rate (see ‘‘Separate

Rates,’’ below), which will apply to each

of its constituent entities, the Shanghai

Baosteel Group Corporation is the

respondent. Consequently, in order to

accurately calculate the Corporation’s

normal value for any given model of

subject merchandise, the Department

necessarily requires for every model or

product type reported by Shanghai

Baosteel Group Corporation in the U.S.

market sales listing, one weightedaverage set of factors of production data

based on POI-specific factors of

production data for all members of the

single entity Shanghai Baosteel Group

Corporation. Therefore, for the

preliminary determination, for all

models of subject merchandise sold by

Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation

during the POI we have calculated a

single weighted-average normal value

based on the factors of production for all

of the firms (Baoshan Co., Ltd./Baosteel

Group, Firm A and Firm B) that

produced these models during the POI.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the PRC

as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)

country in all past antidumping

investigations (see, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 33805

(May 25, 2000), and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple

Juice Concentrate from the People’s

Republic of China, 65 FR 19873 (April

13, 2000) (Apple Juice)). A designation

as an NME remains in effect until it is

revoked by the Department (see section

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

in this investigation have not requested

a revocation of the PRC’s NME status.

We have, therefore, preliminarily

determined to continue to treat the PRC

as an NME country. When the

Department is investigating imports

from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the

Act directs us to base the normal value

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

of production, valued in a comparable

market economy that is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

The sources of individual factor prices

are discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section, below.

Furthermore, no interested party has

requested that the hot-rolled carbon

steel flat products industry in the PRC

be treated as a market-oriented industry

and no information has been provided

that would lead to such a determination.

Therefore, we have not treated the hotrolled carbon steel flat products

industry in the PRC as a market-oriented

industry in this investigation.

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving NME

countries, the Department begins with a

rebuttable presumption that all

companies within the country are

subject to government control and thus

should be assessed a single antidumping

duty deposit rate. It is the Department’s

policy to assign all exporters of

merchandise subject to investigation in

an NME country this single rate, unless

an exporter can demonstrate that it is

sufficiently independent so as to be

entitled to a separate rate. The six

companies that have submitted section

A responses have provided the

requested company-specific separate

rates information and have stated that,

for each company, there is no element

of government ownership or control. All

six companies have requested a separate

company-specific rate.1

Angang reported that it is owned by

all the people and that Angang and its

affiliates have no corporate relationship

with any level of the PRC government.

Angang stated that Angang Group

International Trade Corporation has

complete independence with respect to

its export activities.

Baosteel Group reported that Baosteel

Group is a company owned by all the

people. Baosteel Group claimed that

Baosteel Group, Baoshan Iron and Steel

Co., Ltd., and Baosteel International

Trade Corporation operate

independently from the national,

provincial and local governments with

respect to all significant export

activities.

Benxi reported that it is owned by all

the people. Benxi stated that all exports

of the subject merchandise were

produced by Bengang Steel, of which

Benxi Group has majority ownership.

Benxi claimed that Benxi Trading and

its affiliates have no corporate

relationship with any level of the PRC

government.

Panzhihua reported that Pangang

Group International Economic &

Trading Corporation (‘‘Pangang

International’’) and its parent company,

Panzhihua Iron & Steel (Group)

Company (Panzhihua Group), are

owned by all the people. Panzhihua

claimed that Pangang International,

Panzhihua Group, and Panzhihua Steel

operate independently from the

national, provincial and local

governments with respect to all

significant export activities.

WISCO reported that International

Economic and Trading Corp. Wugang

Group (‘‘IETC’’), and its parent company

and supplier, Wuhan Iron & Steel

(Group) Corporation, are owned by all

the people. WISCO claimed that Wuhan

Iron & Steel (Group) Corporation and

IETC operate independently from the

national, provincial and local

governments with respect to all

significant export activities.

Based on these claims, we considered

whether each respondent is eligible for

a separate rate. The Department’s

separate rate test to determine whether

the exporters are independent from

government control is not concerned, in

general, with macroeconomic/bordertype controls, e.g., export licenses,

quotas, and minimum export prices,

particularly if these controls are

imposed to prevent dumping. The test

22188 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

2As explained above, for the preliminary

determination we have found that Yi Chang did not

have any exports of the subject merchandise to the

United States during the POI.

focuses, rather, on controls over the

investment, pricing, and output

decision-making process at the

individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, from the

People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276,

61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey

from the People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725,

14726 (March 20, 1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control of its export

activities to be entitled to a separate

rate, the Department analyzes each

entity exporting the subject

merchandise under a test arising out of

the Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588

(May 6, 1991) and amplified in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).

Under the separate rates criteria, the

Department assigns separate rates in

NME cases only if respondents can

demonstrate the absence of both de jure

and de facto governmental control over

export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the

following de jure criteria in determining

whether an individual company may be

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence

of restrictive stipulations associated

with an individual exporter’s business

and export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

The respondents have placed on the

record a number of documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control,

including the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the

People’s Republic of China’’ and the

‘‘Company Law of the People’s Republic

of China.’’ In prior cases, the

Department has analyzed these laws and

found that they establish an absence of

de jure control. See, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension

Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR

54472, 54474 (October 24, 1995). We

have no information in this proceeding

which would cause us to reconsider this

determination.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by or are subject to the approval

of a governmental agency; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses. As stated in previous cases, there

is some evidence that certain

enactments of the PRC central

government have not been implemented

uniformly among different sectors and/

or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon

Carbide. Therefore, the Department has

determined that an analysis of de facto

control is critical in determining

whether respondents are, in fact, subject

to a degree of governmental control

which would preclude the Department

from assigning separate rates.

The respondents asserted the

following: (1) They establish their own

export prices; (2) they negotiate

contracts without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) they make their own personnel

decisions; and (4) they retain the

proceeds of their export sales, using

profits according to their business

needs. Additionally, none of the

respondents’ questionnaire responses

suggest pricing is coordinated among

exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of

the respondents’ questionnaire

responses reveals no other information

indicating government control. As

stated in the Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at

22587, ownership of the company by a

state-owned enterprise does not require

the application of a single rate. Based on

the information provided, we

preliminary determine that there is an

absence of de facto governmental

control of the respondents’ export

functions. Consequently, we

preliminarily determine that Angang,

Baosteel Group, Benxi, Panzhihua, and

WISCO have met the criteria for the

application of a separate rate.

The People’s Republic of China-Wide

Rate

All exporters were given the

opportunity to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire. As

explained above, we received timely

Section A responses from Angang,

Baosteel Group, Benxi, Panzhihua,

WISCO, and Yi Chang.2 Our review of

U.S. import statistics from the PRC,

however, reveals that Angang, Baosteel

Group, Benxi, Panzhihua, and WISCO

did not account for all imports of

subject merchandise into the United

States from the PRC, even after adjusting

for the merchandise Yi Chang said it

had entered as being of Chinese origin.

For this reason, we preliminarily

determine that some PRC exporters of

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products failed to respond to our

questionnaire. Consequently, we are

applying a single antidumping rate—the

China-wide rate—to all other exporters

in the PRC based on our presumption

that those respondents who failed to

demonstrate entitlement to a separate

rate constitute a single enterprise under

common control by the Chinese

government. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR

25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000) (‘‘Synthetic

Indigo’’). The China-wide rate applies to

all entries of subject merchandise except

for entries from Angang, Baosteel

Group, Benxi, Panzhihua, and WISCO.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested, significantly

impedes a proceeding under the

antidumping statute, or provides

information which cannot be verified,

the Department shall use, subject to

sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination. Pursuant to

section 782(e) of the Act, the

Department shall not decline to

consider submitted information if that

information is necessary to the

determination but does not meet all of

the requirements established by the

Department provided that all of the

following requirements are met: (1) The

information is submitted by the

established deadline; (2) the information

can be verified; (3) the information is

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as

a reliable basis for reaching the

applicable determination; (4) the

interested party has demonstrated that it

acted to the best of its ability; and (5)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22189

the information can be used without

undue difficulties.

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

requires the Department to use facts

available when a party does not provide

the Department with information by the

established deadline or in the form and

manner requested by the Department. In

addition, section 776(b) of the Act

provides that, if the Department finds

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information,’’ the Department may use

information that is adverse to the

interests of that party as facts otherwise

available.

A. China Wide Rate

In the case of the single Chinese

enterprise, as explained above, some

exporters of the single enterprise failed

to respond to the Department’s request

for information. Pursuant to section

776(a) of the Act, in reaching our

preliminary determination, we have

used total facts available for the Chinawide rate because certain entities did

not respond. Also, because some

exporters of the single enterprise failed

to respond to the Department’s requests

for information, the Department has

found that the single enterprise failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability.

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of

the Act, the Department preliminarily

finds that, in selecting from among the

facts available, an adverse inference is

appropriate. For our preliminary

determination, as adverse facts

available, we have used the highest rate

calculated for a respondent, i.e., the rate

calculated for Benxi. In an investigation,

if the Department chooses as facts

available a calculated dumping margin

of another respondent, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would indicate that

using that rate is appropriate. Where

circumstances indicate that the selected

margin may not be appropriate, the

Department will attempt to find a more

appropriate basis for facts available. See,

e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,

6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the

Department disregarded the highest

margin as adverse best information

available because the margin was based

on another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

unusually high margin). In this

investigation, there is no indication that

the highest calculated margin is

inappropriate to use as adverse facts

available.

Accordingly, for the preliminary

determination, the China-wide rate is

67.44 percent. Because this is a

preliminary margin, the Department

will consider all margins on the record

at the time of the final determination for

the purpose of determining the most

appropriate final China-wide margin.

B. Angang and Benxi

Angang and Benxi failed to report

freight information for all of their

reported inputs. This information was

requested twice by the Department, first

in the original questionnaire dated

January 4, 2001, and again in a

supplemental questionnaire dated

March 12, 2001. Because Angang and

Benxi failed to provide this information,

the Department, in accordance with

section 776(a) of the Act, is basing its

freight expense calculation on the facts

otherwise available. This information is

important because the Department

needs it to calculate the freight expense

component of the cost of Angang’s and

Benxi’s factors of production. Because

we find that Angang and Benxi failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of

their ability to comply with our request

that they provide the freight expense

data, we are making, pursuant to section

776(b) of the Act, an adverse inference

in selecting from the facts otherwise

available. Therefore, as facts available,

we applied the highest freight expense

calculated for each respondent’s inputs

to those inputs for which freight

information was not reported.

C. Baosteel Group, Firm A of Baosteel

Group, and Firm B of Baosteel Group

Respondent Baosteel Group reported

that it sold 63 unique models of hotrolled products to the United States

during the POI; however, Baosteel

Group calculated unique factors of

production costs for only seven product

categories. Similarly, Firm A and Firm

B of the Baosteel Group also did not

report unique factors of production for

every model of hot-rolled steel sold to

the United States during the POI by

Baosteel Group. In our supplemental

questionnaires to Baosteel Group, Firm

A of the Baosteel Group, and Firm B of

the Baosteel Group, we requested that

they revise their response to calculate a

unique set of FOP data for each control

number produced and sold in the

United States market, taking into

account the physical characteristics that

distinguish each product. In their April

2, 2001 response and April 10, 2001

response, Baosteel Group and Firm A of

Baosteel Group, respectively,

maintained that because they produce a

relatively narrow size range of hotrolled products and do not keep the

record of the processing time for

different size of products for the cost

accounting purpose, they are not able to

allocate their cost among the products

based upon the physical characteristics,

such as width and thickness. In its April

2, 2001 response, Firm B of the Baosteel

Group claimed that as it produced

generally low-alloy hot-rolled products

with a small range of carbon content,

the yield rate of raw materials at the

rolling process does not vary according

to different slab and hot-rolled sheet.

Furthermore, Firm B maintained that

the cost of hot-rolled coils is only

separately recorded and assigned to

major categories of products at the

rolling process (e.g., hot-rolled strips,

checkered steel sheet, medium and

small size thick hot-rolled coils).

In their April 13, 2001 response,

petitioners argued that because Baosteel

Group failed to submit factors of

production data which account for

differences in cost related to products of

varying thicknesses, the Department

should apply adverse facts available.

However, based on the claims of

Baosteel Group and the data it

submitted, we preliminarily determine

that respondents assigned factor usages

to products to the level of specificity

permitted by their cost accounting

systems. As Baosteel Group appears to

have responded to the best of its ability,

it is not appropriate to draw an adverse

inference in applying facts available as

advocated by petitioners in their April

12, 2001 submission. Additionally,

although the reported factors of

production were not on a model-specific

basis, there is no data on the record to

suggest that the reported factor amounts

did not accurately reflect the factor

amounts associated with all subject

merchandise. Finally, we are unable to

adjust the reported factors of production

due to the broad basis on which the

costs were accumulated and the lack of

information on the record on how to

appropriately adjust these costs.

Consequently, we have determined to

use their data for the preliminary

determination. We intend to fully

examine this issue at verification and

for the final determination.

Surrogate Country

When the Department is investigating

imports from an NME country, section

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,

in most circumstances, on the NME

producer’s factors of production, valued

in a surrogate market economy country

or countries considered to be

appropriate by the Department. In

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the

Act, the Department, in valuing the

factors of production, shall utilize, to

22190 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

the extent possible, the prices or costs

of factors of production in one or more

market economy countries that are at a

level of economic development

comparable to the NME country and are

significant producers of comparable

merchandise. The sources of the

surrogate factor values are discussed

under the NV section below.

The Department has determined that

India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka

and the Phillippines are countries

comparable to the PRC in terms of

economic development. See

Memorandum from Jeffrey May to

Edward Yang: Antidumping Duty

Investigation on Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products from the

People’s Republic of China, dated

January 11, 2001. Customarily, we select

an appropriate surrogate based on the

availability and reliability of data from

these countries. For PRC cases, the

primary surrogate has often been India

if it is a significant producer of

comparable merchandise. In this case,

we have found that India is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

We used India as the primary

surrogate country and, accordingly, we

have calculated NV using Indian prices

to value the PRC producers’ factors of

production, when available and

appropriate. See Surrogate Country

Selection Memorandum to The File from

Catherine Bertrand, Case Analyst, dated

April 23, 2001, (‘‘Surrogate Country

Memorandum’’). We have obtained and

relied upon publicly available

information wherever possible. See

Factor Valuation Memorandum to The

File from Case Analysts, dated April 23,

2001 (‘‘Factor Valuation

Memorandum’’).

In accordance with section

351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department’s

regulations, for the final determination

in an antidumping investigation,

interested parties may submit publicly

available information to value factors of

production within 40 days after the date

of publication of this preliminary

determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of certain

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products to

the United States by Angang, Benxi, and

Baosteel Group were made at less than

fair value, we compared export price

(‘‘EP’’) or constructed export price

(‘‘CEP’’), as appropriate, to NV, as

described in the ‘‘Export Price and

Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice. In

accordance with section

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

calculated weighted-average EPs or

CEPs.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, for respondents Angang and

Benxi we used EP because the subject

merchandise was sold directly to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States prior to importation and because

CEP was not otherwise indicated. As

explained below, for Baosteel Group we

used CEP. In accordance with section

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

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs or CEPs to the NVs.

We calculated EP based on prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. For Angang we made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, insurance, and ocean freight.

Because certain domestic charges, such

as those for foreign inland freight,

insurance, and ocean freight, were

provided by NME companies, we valued

those charges based on surrogate rates

from India. See Factor Valuation

Memorandum. For Benxi, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

foreign inland freight and brokerage and

handling. Because these factors were

provided by NME companies, we based

them on surrogate rates from India. See

Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Baosteel Group classified all of its

sales of the subject merchandise in the

United States as EP sales in its

questionnaire response. All of Baosteel

Group’s U.S. sales of subject

merchandise were made prior to

importation through Baosteel America

Inc. (‘‘Baosteel America’’), a U.S. based

affiliated reseller.

We examined the facts surrounding

the U.S. sales process. The initial point

of contact for all customer inquiries is

Baosteel Group International Trade

Corporation (‘‘Baosteel International’’),

the trading company owned by Baosteel

Group and exporter of all of Baosteel

Group’s sales of the subject

merchandise. Subsequent contacts with

the customer may go through Baosteel

America since due to the time difference

between the United States and the PRC,

Baosteel America serves as a more

convenient communication link to

Baosteel International. According to

Baosteel Group, Baosteel International

and the U.S. customer negotiate the

prices, quantities and other sales terms

directly, or through Baosteel America as

a corresponding intermediary. After

settling sales quantity, price, time of

shipment and other terms of contract,

Baosteel International will instruct

Baosteel America to sign a contract with

the designated U.S. customer. Because

the terms of sale for all U.S. sales of

subject merchandise are FOB Shanghai,

neither Baosteel International nor

Baosteel America incurs any movement

expenses. Baosteel Group explained that

three invoices are issued for each U.S.

sales transaction. The first invoice is

issued by Baoshan Co., Ltd. to Baosteel

International after the goods are shipped

out. The second invoice is issued by

Baosteel International to Baosteel

America upon shipment to the port. The

third invoice is issued by Baosteel

America to the unaffiliated U.S.

customer after receiving the invoice

from Baosteel International. Baosteel

Group maintains that title does not

transfer to Baosteel America and the

goods do not enter Baosteel America’s

inventory. The U.S. customer pays

Baosteel America, which then makes

payment to Baosteel International.

Baosteel International pays Baoshan Co.,

Ltd. after receiving payment from

Baosteel America. The U.S. customer

may request technical service or make

warranty claims through Baosteel

America, although according to Baosteel

Group, Baosteel International must

authorize approval for all claims. See

Section A Questionnaire Response

(February 8, 2001), Sections C and D

Questionnaire Response (February 26,

2001) Section A Supplemental

Questionnaire Response (March 8,

2001), and Supplemental Section A, C,

and D Questionnaire Response (April 2,

2001).

Because the contracts on which

Baosteel Group’s U.S. sales were based

were between Baosteel America and its

unaffiliated U.S. customers and Baosteel

America invoiced and received payment

from the unaffiliated U.S. customer, the

Department preliminarily determines

that Baosteel Group’s U.S. sales were

made ‘‘in the United States’’ within the

meaning of section 772(b) of the Act,

and, thus, should be treated as CEP

transactions. This is consistent with AK

Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d

1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

We calculated weighted-average CEPs

for Baosteel Group’s U.S. sales made in

the United States through its U.S.

affiliate. We based CEP on FOB

Shanghai prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for foreign inland freight from the plant

to the port of exportation and brokerage

and handling in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Because

these factors were provided by NME

companies, we based them on surrogate

rates from India. To calculate inland

freight, we multiplied the reported

distance from the plant to the port of

exit by a surrogate rail rate from India.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of

the Act, we deducted from CEP direct

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22191

and indirect selling expenses (i.e., credit

and indirect selling expenses) that were

associated with Baosteel America’s

economic activities occurring in the

United States. See Baosteel Group

Analysis Memorandum.

Normal Value

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine the

NV using a factors-of-production

methodology if: (1) The merchandise is

exported from an NME country; and (2)

the information does not permit the

calculation of NV using home-market

prices, third-country prices, or

constructed value under section 773(a)

of the Act.

Factors of production include: (1)

Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of

raw materials employed; (3) amounts of

energy and other utilities consumed;

and (4) representative capital costs. We

used factors of production, reported by

respondents, for materials, energy,

labor, by-products, and packing. We

valued all the input factors using

publicly available published

information as discussed in the

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ and ‘‘Factor

Valuations’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.408(c)(1), where a producer sources

an input from a market economy and

pays for it in market economy currency,

the Department employs the actual price

paid for the input to calculate the

factors-based NV. See also Lasko Metal

Products v. United States, 437 F.3d

1442, 1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

(‘‘Lasko’’). Respondents Baosteel Group,

Angang and Benxi reported that some of

their inputs were sourced from market

economies and paid for in market

economy currency. See ‘‘Factor

Valuation’’ section below.

Each of the respondents reported

‘‘self-produced’’ factors among its

factors of production for energy inputs,

including such factors as electricity,

oxygen, nitrogen, and argon. We

preliminarily determined to value

electricity, oxygen, argon, and nitrogen

through use of surrogate valuation,

rather than based on surrogate valuation

of the factors going into the production

of those inputs.

Factor Valuations

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by

respondents for the POI. To calculate

NV, the reported per-unit factor

quantities were multiplied by publicly

available Indian surrogate values

(except as noted below). In selecting the

surrogate values, we considered the

quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by

including freight costs to make them

delivered prices. For a detailed

description of all surrogate values used

for respondents, see Factor Valuation

Memorandum.

Citing Department case precedent,

respondent Baosteel Group argued in its

March 23, 2001 surrogate value

submission that the Department should

make deductions to domestic prices to

ensure that they are exclusive of India’s

Central Sales Tax or any state sales tax.

Consistent with Sebacic Acid from the

People’s Republic of China, Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 Fed. Reg.

65678 (December 15, 1997), where there

was substantial evidence that a

surrogate value based on a domestic

price was tax-inclusive, we deducted

sales taxes from the surrogate value.

Specifically, the surrogate value for

sulphuric acid was based on data from

Indian Chemical Weekly, which was

recently used in the antidumping

investigation of bulk aspirin from the

People’s Republic of China. See

Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Factor

of Production Valuation for the Final

Determination; Final Determination of

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of

Bulk Aspirin from the People’s Republic

of China (‘‘Bulk Aspirin’’) (May 17,

2000). This memorandum was added to

the record as an attachment to

Memorandum to the File, Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Products from the People’s

Republic of China (April 17, 2001). In

the Bulk Aspirin factor valuation

memorandum, we calculated a lower,

tax-exclusive surrogate value for

sulphuric acid. Consistent with Bulk

Aspirin, we have also calculated a taxexclusive surrogate value for sulphuric

acid in this case.

We added to Indian import surrogate

values a surrogate freight cost using the

shorter of the reported distance from the

domestic supplier to the factory or the

distance from the nearest seaport to the

factory. This adjustment is in

accordance with the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d

1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For those Indian

Rupee values not contemporaneous

with the POI, we adjusted for inflation

using wholesale price indices published

in the International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics. For

those United States dollar denominated

values (e.g., for slag, electricity) not

contemporaneous with the POI, we

adjusted for inflation using producer

price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

Except as noted below, we valued raw

material inputs using the weightedaverage unit import values derived from

the Monthly Trade Statistics of Foreign

Trade of India—Volume II—Imports

(‘‘Indian Import Statistics’’) for the time

period corresponding to the POI. Where

POI-specific Indian Import Statistics

data were not available, we used Indian

Import Statistics data from an earlier

period (i.e., April 1, 1998 through

March 31, 1999 or April 1, 1999 through

March 31, 2000. Also, we valued

sulfuric acid using Indian Chemical

Weekly data from October 1998 though

March 1999. We adjusted the value for

inflation using wholesale price indices

published in the International Monetary

Fund’s International Financial Statistics

and excluded taxes.

We rejected the following values

submitted by respondents and/or

petitioners as aberrational. We rejected

the POI-specific surrogate value for iron

ore pellets (HTS 26011201) provided by

respondent Baosteel Group because the

value of $0.29 per MT was aberrational

when compared with data from the

same source from an earlier period, the

value for iron ore available from the

Department’s Index of Factor Values for

the People’s Republic of China located

at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/factorv/prc/

material.html, and the market prices

paid by Baosteel Group and Angang.

Instead, we valued iron ore pellets using

the identical HTS number, but for an

earlier period (April 1, 1998 through

March 31, 1999). We valued ferrosilicon based on HTS number 72022100

(‘‘silicon containing greater than 55% of

silicon’’) rather than respondent

Baosteel Group’s proposed ferro-silicon

value (HTS 72022900 (other ferrosilicon) based on the fact that

respondent Baosteel Group’s data

indicated that the specification of the

ferro-silicon purchased by Baosteel

Group was of the higher silicon content

material. We note that respondents

Benxi and Angang also proposed

valuing ferro-silicon based on Indian

Import Statistics data for ferro-silicon

containing more than 55 percent silicon,

albeit for an earlier period. Also, the

Department determined that the

surrogate value for slag submitted by

both respondents and petitioners was

unreliable. According to New Steel,

February 1997, pages 24 and 44, slag has

a relatively low value compared to the

price of steel. Because the Indian values

for slag were unusually high compared

to the price of the subject merchandise,

the Department has preliminarily used

values for slag from the U.S. Geological

Survey Minerals, Commodities

Summaries from 1998. See Factor

22192 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

Valuation Memorandum. We valued

ammonium sulphate, which was

reported as a by-product for respondent

Angang, based on Indian Chemical

Weekly and we excluded taxes. The

Indian surrogate value proposed by

respondents Angang and Benxi

represented a sale of only one metric

ton. Finally, as the surrogate values for

oxygen, nitrogen, and argon appeared

aberrational compared with valuation

data used for these factors in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s

Republic of China (CTL Plate), 62 FR

61964, (November 20, 1997) we relied

on October 1996 price information from

Bhoruka Gases Limited, an Indian

manufacturer of Industrial Gases for

surrogate values for oxygen, nitrogen,

and argon gases. This information was

adjusted for inflation using data from

the International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

As explained above, respondents

Baosteel Group and Angang sourced

certain raw material inputs from market

economy suppliers and paid for them in

market economy currencies.

Specifically, Baosteel Group, Firm B of

the Baosteel Group, and Angang sourced

iron ore from market economy

suppliers. Respondent Baosteel Group

reported that four types of iron ore were

purchased from market economy

suppliers, namely, iron ore powder,

lump iron ore powder, titanium iron ore

and pellet iron powder. The evidence

provided by Baosteel Group indicated

that its market economy purchases of

iron ore were significant. See Exhibits 4

and 9 of Baosteel Group’s February 26,

2001 submission. The Department has

determined to use the FOB Baosteel

Group prices as reported, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). However, for

that portion of the iron ore powder,

lump iron ore powder, and pellet iron

powder shipments which were

unloaded at an intermediary port, we

have added an Indian surrogate river

transport freight expense, given that the

data indicates that the prices reported

did not account for these additional

expenses. Also, Baosteel Group reported

that for certain of the imported iron ore

imports, the marine insurance was

provided by a non-market economy

supplier. Where Baosteel Group

reported that the marine insurance was

provided by an NME supplier, we

valued marine insurance from an Indian

company (see below). We then added

the freight and shipment expenses as

well as a marine insurance expense to

a weighted-average FOB Baosteel Group

price to account for materials delivered

at an intermediary port. Finally, we

weight-averaged the total value of the

iron ore delivered directly to Baosteel

Group (which included freight and

marine insurance expenses) with the

total value of the iron ore unloaded at

an intermediately port to derive a final

market-based iron ore price per category

of iron ore reported.

Firm B of the Baosteel Group reported

that two types of iron ore were

purchased from market economy

suppliers, namely, iron ore powder and

iron ore lumps. The evidence provided

by Firm B of Baosteel Group indicated

that its market economy purchases of

iron ore were significant. See March 12,

2001 submission of Firm B of Baosteel

Group at D–7. The Department has

determined to use the FOB Firm B

prices as reported, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). We added to

weighted-average price for each input

the weighted-average reported amount

for freight.

As explained in the preamble to 19

CFR 351.408(c)(1), where the quantity of

the input purchase was insignificant, we

do not rely on the price paid by an NME

producer to a market economy supplier.

See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366

(May 17, 1997). Benxi’s reported

information demonstrates that the

quantity of one of its inputs which it

sourced from market economy suppliers

was so small as to be insignificant when

compared to the quantity of the same

input it sourced from PRC suppliers.

See Factor Valuation Memorandum for

the precise volumes. Therefore, as the

amount of this reported market

economy input is insignificant, we did

not use the price paid by Benxi for this

input and instead used Indian Import

Statistics data, as adjusted for inflation.

To value electricity, we used 1997

data reported as the average Indian

domestic prices within the category

‘‘Electricity for Industry,’’ published in

the International Energy Agency’s

publication, Energy Prices and Taxes,

Fourth Quarter, 1999, as adjusted for

inflation.

Angang purchased iron ore fines and

lump iron ore from market economy

suppliers during the POI, one of which

was an affiliated joint venture. We

compared the prices paid to the

affiliated supplier with the prices paid

to unaffiliated suppliers (both to Angang

and Baosteel) and found that price from

the affiliated supplier was within the

same range as those from the

unaffiliated suppliers. After having

conducted this test, we calculated a

weighted average of the affiliated and

unaffiliated purchases to arrive at the

price for iron ore fines, because Angang

had purchases from both types of

market economy suppliers for this

input.

Respondents reported the following

packing inputs: Paper, steel strip, steel

clip, steel wires, plastic board, plastic

washers, inner and outer paperboard,

steel cushions, and steel buckles. We

used Indian Import Statistics data for

the POI and for the period April 1, 1998

through March 31, 1999. See Factor

Valuation Memorandum.

We used Indian transport information

to value transport for raw materials. For

all instances in which respondents

reported delivery by truck, to calculate

domestic inland freight (truck), we used

a price quote from an Indian trucking

company for transporting materials

between Mumbai and Surat (263

kilometers), which was provided in

Exhibit 32 to Baosteel Group’s March

23, 2001 surrogate value submission.

We converted the Indian Rupee value to

U.S. dollars and adjusted for inflation

through the POI. Similarly, for domestic

inland freight (rail), we used freight

rates as quoted from Indian Railway

Conference Association price lists,

which was provided in Exhibit Z to the

November 22, 2000, amendment to

petition in this case. We used the rate

for distances between 741–750

kilometers (the lowest distance reported

on the schedule) since all of the

respondents are located less than 500

kilometers from the port of exit. We

converted the Indian Rupee value to

U.S. dollars and adjusted for inflation

through the POI.

To value inland insurance, we used

the Department’s recently revised Index

of Factor Values for Use in

Antidumping Duty Investigations

Involving Products from the PRC

(available on the Department’s website.)

We converted the Indian Rupee value to

U.S. dollars and adjusted for inflation

through the POI. To value marine

insurance and brokerage and handling

we used a publicly summarized version

of the average value for marine

insurance expenses and brokerage and

handling expenses reported in Certain

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative and New Shipper

Reviews, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999).

To value river transport, we used the

surrogate value for river freight used in

the Preliminary Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon

Quality Steel Products From The

People’s Republic of China (‘‘ColdRolled Steel from the PRC’’), 65 FR 1117

(January 7, 2000). No party submitted a

surrogate value for ocean freight.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22193

Therefore, to value ocean freight, we

used the same methodology as in CTL

Plate and the initiation of this case. We

calculated the total cost, insurance,

freight (CIF) value for imports of subject

merchandise into the United States

during the POI, subtracted the insurance

and freight exclusive total Free

Alongside (FAS) value, and divided the

remainder by the total volume of POI

importations of subject merchandise to

arrive at a per unit value. See Factor

Valuation Memorandum.

Respondents identified a number of

by-products which they claimed are

recovered in the production process

and/or sold. However, for certain of the

claimed by-products the responses are

unclear as to how the various inputs are

re-entered into the production process.

Therefore, the Department has only

offset the respondents’ cost of

production by the amount of a reported

by-product (or a portion thereof) where

respondents’ responses indicated that it

was sold and/or where the record

evidence clearly demonstrates that the

by-product was re-entered into the

production process. We intend to

examine this issue more closely at

verification for all respondents. See

Factor Valuation Memorandum for a

complete discussion of by-product

credits given and the surrogate values

used.

To value factory overhead, and

selling, general and administrative

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), we calculated

simple average rates based on financial

information from two Indian integrated

steel producers, SAIL and Tata. For

profit, we used information from Tata.

Although respondents requested that we

use financial information from another

Indian steel producer, that steel

producer is a mini-mill, and its financial

information would be less comparable

to that of the respondents, as the

respondents operate integrated steel

production facilities. (For a further

discussion of the surrogate values for

overhead, SG&A and profit, see Factor

Valuation Memorandum.)

For labor, consistent with section

351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s

regulations, we used the PRC regressionbased wage rate at Import

Administration’s home page, Import

Library, Expected Wages of Selected

NME Countries, revised in May 2000

(see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The

source of the wage rate data on the

Import Administration’s Web site is the

1999 Year Book of Labour Statistics,

International Labor Office (Geneva:

1999), Chapter 5B: Wages in

Manufacturing.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the

Act, we intend to verify all company

information relied upon in making our

final determination.

Rate for Producers/Exporters That

Responded Only to Separate Rates

Questionnaire

For those PRC producers/exporters

that responded to our separate rates

questionnaire but did not respond to the

full antidumping questionnaire because

they were not selected to respond (i.e.,

Panzhihua and WISCO), we have

calculated a weighted-average margin

based on the rates calculated for those

producers/exporters that were selected

to respond. See, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish Tail

Meat From the People’s Republic of

China, 62 FR 41347, 41350 (August 1,

1997).

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all imports of subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which the NV exceeds the EP or CEP, as

indicated below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average percent

margin

Angang Group International

Trade Corporation ............. 64.77

Shanghai Baosteel Group

Corporation ....................... 40.74

Benxi Iron & Steel Group

Co., Ltd. ............................ 67.44

Panzhihua Iron & Steel

(Group) Company ............. 44.47

Wuhan Iron & Steel Group

Corporation ....................... 44.47

China-Wide ........................... 67.44

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination of sales at LTFV. If our

final determination is affirmative, the

ITC will determine before the later of

120 days after the date of this

preliminary determination or 45 days

after our final determination whether

the domestic industry in the United

States is materially injured, or

threatened with material injury, by

reason of imports, or sales (or the

likelihood of sales) for importation, of

the subject merchandise.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

may be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no

later than fifty days after the date of

publication of this notice, and rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in case

briefs, no later than fifty-five days after

the date of publication of this

preliminary determination. See 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i); 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A

list of authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

This summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, any hearing will be held

fifty-seven days after publication of this

notice at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at

a time and location to be determined.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

date, time, and location of the hearing

two days before the scheduled date.

Interested parties who wish to request a

hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the date of publication of this

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests

should contain: (1) The party’s name,

address, and telephone number; (2) the

number of participants; and (3) a list of

the issues to be discussed. At the

hearing, each party may make an

affirmative presentation only on issues

raised in that party’s case brief, and may

make rebuttal presentations only on

arguments included in that party’s

rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 75 days

after the date of the preliminary

determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

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

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

22194 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners in these investigations are

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Gallatin Steel

Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV Steel Company,

INc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor

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

(a unit of USX Corporation), Weirton Steel

Corporation, the Independent Steelworkers Union,

and the United Steelworkers of America

(collectively the petitioners). Weirton Steel

Corporation is not a petitioner in the investigation

involving (HRS) from the Netherlands.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10853 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–485–806]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products From Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Riker or Charles Riggle at

(202) 482–0186, (202) 482–0650,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 5, Group II, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(2000.)

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (HRS) from Romania are being,

or are likely to be, sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV), as

provided in section 733 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the Suspension of Liquidation

section of this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on

December 4, 2000. See Notice of

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Argentina, India, Indonesia,

Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the

People’s Republic of China, Romania,

South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Ukraine, 65 FR 77568 (December 12,

2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the

initiation of these investigations,1 the

following events have occurred:

The Department set aside a period for

all interested parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. See

Initiation Notice at 77569. We received

no comments from any parties in this

investigation. The Department did,

however, receive comments regarding

product coverage in the investigation of

hot-rolled carbon steel products from

the Netherlands. In that investigation

we received comments from Duracell

Global Business Management Group on

December 11, 2000, from Energizer on

December 15, 2000, from Bouffard Metal

Goods, Inc., and Truelove & Maclean,

Inc., on December 18, 2000, and from

Corus Staal BV and Corus Steel U.S.A.,

Inc. (collectively referred to as Corus),

from Thomas Steel Strip Corporation on

December 26, 2000, and from Rayovac

Corporation on March 12, 2001.

On December 28, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) preliminarily determined that

there is a reasonable indication that

imports of the products subject to this

investigation are threatening or are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States producing the domestic

like product. See Hot-Rolled Steel

Products from Argentina, China, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Netherlands,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 FR 805

(January 4, 2001).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued an antidumping questionnaire to

the government of Romania, the

mandatory respondent in this case. We

also sent copies of the questionnaire to

Gavazzi Steel and Sidex S.A. (Sidex),

both of whom had been identified as

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise by the petitioners. On

January 30, 2001, we received a letter

from Sidex stating that Gavazzi Steel, a

producer of the subject merchandise in

Romania, did not sell the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of investigation (POI) and

that only HRS produced by Sidex was

exported to the United States during the

POI. On February 1 and February 26,

2001, we received questionnaire

responses from Sidex, Sidex Trading,

SRL, Sidex International, Plc (jointly,

the Sidex Exporters),

Metalexportimport, S.A. (MEI), Metanef,

S.A. (Metanef) and Metagrimex, S.A.

(Metagrimex). We issued supplemental

questionnaires to Sidex and the Sidex

Exporters, MEI, Metanef and

Metagrimex on March 12, 2001, and

received responses on March 31, 2001.

On February 1, 2001, we invited

interested parties to provide comments

on the surrogate country selection and

publicly available information for

valuing the factors of production. We

received comments from both the

petitioners and the respondents

regarding surrogate country selection on

February 6, 2001. Between February 6

and April 11, 2001, the petitioners and

the respondents submitted additional

comments regarding issues they

believed the Department should

consider for the purposes of the

preliminary determination.

On April 11, 2001, counsel for Sidex

and the Sidex Exporters, Metanef, MEI

and Metagrimex submitted a letter from

the Embassy of Romania which stated

that Gavazzi Steel made no exports of

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POI.

Period of Investigation

The POI for HRS from Romania is

April 1, 2000 through September 30,

2000. This period corresponds to the

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., November 2000).

Scope of the Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products of a

rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal and whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other non-metallic

substances, in coils (whether or not in

successively superimposed layers),

regardless of thickness, and in straight

length, of a thickness of less than 4.75

mm and of a width measuring at least

10 times the thickness. Universal mill

plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on

four faces or in a closed box pass, of a

width exceeding 150 mm, but not

exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness

of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and

without patterns in relief) of a thickness

not less than 4.0 mm is not included

within the scope of this investigation.

Specifically included within the

scope are vacuum degassed, fully

stabilized (commonly referred to as

interstitial-free (IF) steels, high strength

low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the

substrate for motor lamination steels. IF