Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22173

at 8. We based the value of freight by

rail on public information used in the

August 31, 1999 analysis memorandum

for the preliminary results of the 1997–

1998 administrative review of titanium

sponge from Kazakhstan. Id.; see also

Titanium Sponge From the Republic of

Kazakhstan, 64 FR 48793, 48795

(September 8, 1999) (prelim. results). To

value overhead, selling, general and

administrative expenses, and profit, we

used public information reported in the

1998 financial statements of Alexandria

National Iron & Steel Co. (‘‘ANS Steel’’),

an Egyptian producer of hot-rolled steel.

See Factor Valuation Memo, at 8–9.

While we could not determine a

complete value for overhead using ANS

Steel’s financial statements, we could

determine a value for depreciation, a

part of overhead, and have used this

value for overhead.

For each of the surrogate values

selected for use in the Department’s

calculations, we adjusted the values for

inflation using appropriate price index

inflators when those values were not

from a period concurrent with the POI.

See Factor Valuation Memo, at 2.

Verification

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

Act, we will verify all appropriate

information relied upon in making our

final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’) 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withdrawn from warehouse, for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 Customs to

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the weighted-average

amount by which the NV exceeds the

EP, as indicated below. These

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margins

are as follows:

Exporter/Manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percent

OJSC Ispat Karmet .................. 239.57

Kazakhstan-Wide ...................... 239.57

Disclosure

The Department will disclose

calculations performed, within five days

of the date of publication of this notice,

to the parties in this investigation, in

accordance with section 351.224(b) of

the Department’s regulations.

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

affirmative determination of sales at

LTFV. As 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 imports of hot-rolled steel from

Kazakhstan are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

may be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no

later than 50 days after the date of

publication of this notice, and rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be submitted no later

than five days after the time limit for

filing the case brief, pursuant to section

351.309(c) and (d) of the Department’s

regulations. 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.

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 the case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, any hearing will be held 57

days after publication of this notice at

the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401

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, pursuant to section 351.310(c) of

the Department’s regulations. 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, pursuant to section

351.310(c) of the Department’s

regulations.

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 75 days

after the date of this preliminary

determination (i.e. July 9, 2001).

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.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10850 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–791–809]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

from South Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Campau or Maureen Flannery at

(202) 482–1395 or (202) 482–3020,

respectively; Office of Antidumping/

Countervailing Duty Enforcement VII,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce (Department)

regulations are to the regulations at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (HR products) from South

Africa 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 margin of

sales at LTFV is shown in the

22174 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general

information concerning a company’s corporate

structure and business practices, the merchandise

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.

Section B requests a complete listing of all home

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable,

of sales in the most appropriate third-country

market (this section is not applicable to respondents

in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C

requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D

requests information on the cost of production

(COP) of the foreign like product and the

constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under

investigation. Section E requests information on

further manufacturing.

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

Case History

On December 4, 2000, the Department

initiated antidumping investigations of

HR products from Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine. See 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).

The petitioners in this investigation 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, and the Independent

Steelworkers Union (petitioners). Since

the initiation of this investigation 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 77568). We received

no comments from any parties in this

investigation. The Department did,

however, receive comments regarding

product coverage in the investigation of

HR products from the Netherlands. In

that investigation, 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.

On December 22, 2000, the

Department issued a letter to interested

parties in all of the concurrent HR

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,

respondent in the Netherlands

investigation (January 3, 2001); Iscor

Limited (Iscor), respondent in the South

Africa investigation (January 3, 2001);

and Zaporozhstal Iron & Steel Works

(Zaporozhstal), 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

Zaporozhstal proposed any changes to

either the list of product characteristics

proposed by the Department or the

hierarchy of those product

characteristics, but provided

information relating to their 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 B–7 and C–7

(January 4, 2001).

On December 28, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination on imports of subject

merchandise from Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine. On January 4,

2001, the ITC published its preliminary

determination that there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is materially injured by

reason of imports of the merchandise

under investigation from these

countries. See ITC Preliminary Notice of

Determination for Hot-Rolled Steel

Products from Argentina, China, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Netherlands,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 FR 805, 802

(January 4, 2001).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued sections A–E of its antidumping

duty questionnaire1 to Highveld Steel

and Vanadium Corporation Limited

(Highveld), Saldanha Steel Limited

(Saldanha), and Iscor. On January 25,

2001, Saldanha and Iscor submitted

letters to the Department indicating that

they would not be responding to the

Department’s questionnaires. On

January 26, 2001—one day after the due

date of January 25, 2001—the

Department received Highveld’s

response to Section A of its

antidumping duty questionnaire.

Highveld’s section A response was not

appropriately filed with the

Department’s Central Records Unit, did

not include relevant case information in

the upper right-hand corner of the first

page as prescribed by section

351.303(d)(2) of the Department’s

regulations, and did not contain a

request for proprietary treatment of

business proprietary information,

though certain information was

bracketed. Furthermore, no public

version was submitted, and neither

version was served on the petitioners.

On February 2, 2001, the Department

sent a letter to Highveld addressing

these deficiencies, asking Highveld to

re-file its section A response—revised to

comply with the Department’s

requirements—by no later than February

6, 2001, and warning Highveld that its

failure to comply could result in

rejection of its section A response. This

letter was accompanied by a copy of the

Department’s regulations for the

submission of documents to the record.

Also on February 2, 2001, at Highveld’s

request, the Department approved an

extension of the deadline for submitting

the section B, C, and D questionnaire

responses to February 26, 2001.

On February 6, 2001—twelve days

after the original due date of January 25,

2001—the Department received the

public version of Highveld’s response to

Section A of its antidumping duty

questionnaire, along with the revised

proprietary version. There was

substantial improper use of bracketing

in both the proprietary and public

versions of this response (e.g., single

brackets around public information,

double brackets used inappropriately

numerous times, triple brackets used

numerous times, and bracketed

information not summarized or ranged

in the public version). On February 9,

2001, the Department held a

teleconference with Highveld to address

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22175

these issues, and asked Highveld to refile the entire narrative portion of its

submissions—revised to comply with

the Department’s requirements—along

with any revised exhibits (see

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Telephone

Conference with Highveld Official,’’

dated Feburary 12, 2001). In this

teleconference, the Department again

warned Highveld that its failure to

comply could result in the rejection of

its submissions. On February 12, 2001,

the Department sent Highveld a letter

reiterating what was discussed in the

February 9, 2001 teleconference. On

February 16, 2001, the Department

faxed to Highveld a copy of those

portions of its regulations addressing

the procedures for proper bracketing,

filing and treatment of proprietary

information subject to administrative

protective order (APO). Also on

February 16, 2001, at Highveld’s

request, the Department approved an

extension of the deadline for submitting

the second revised version of the section

A questionnaire response to February

21, 2001.

On February 23, 2001—two days after

the due date of February 21, 2001—the

Department received the second revised

versions of Highveld’s public and

proprietary responses to the Section A

antidumping duty questionnaire. The

second revised public version still did

not contain a request for proprietary

treatment of business proprietary

information as required by the

Department’s APO regulations.

On February 26, 2001, the Department

received the narrative portions of

Highveld’s responses for sections B, C,

and D. Highveld again failed to serve the

petitioners with copies of its submission

to the Department. Highveld also failed

to properly submit any of the required

home market sales, U.S. sales, or cost of

production data to either the

Department or to the petitioners.

Highveld submitted a floppy diskette

containing no files of any kind, and then

sent its sales and cost data sets—to the

Department only—via electronic mail

(see Memorandum to the File,

‘‘Compilation of Electronic Mail

Correspondence with Highveld

Officials,’’ dated April 23, 2001). In

analyzing these data sets, the

Department discovered that Highveld

failed to report any data for twelve

different types of expenses for the

majority of its U.S. sales. The fields for

which this data was not reported were

international freight (INTNFRU), marine

insurance (MARNINU), U.S. inland

freight from port to warehouse

(INLFPWU), U.S. warehousing expense

(USWAREHU), U.S. inland freight from

warehouse to unaffiliated customer

(INLFWCU), U.S. inland insurance

(USINSURU), other U.S. transportation

expense (USOTHTRU), U.S. customs

duty (USDUTYU), commissions

(COMMU), indirect selling expenses

incurred in country of manufacture

(INDIRSU), inventory carrying costs

incurred in the United States

(INVCARU), and U.S. repacking cost

(REPACKU). In the narrative responses

for each of the twelve missing sales

expenses, Highveld simply stated that

the subject data had to be supplied by

an affiliated U.S. reseller. Highveld also

failed to provide unique product costs

that account for cost differences related

to the physical characteristics defined

by the Department. In the narrative

response related to CONNUM-specific

costs, Highveld merely stated that it

does not account for costs in this

manner.

On February 27, 2001, the Department

sent a letter to Highveld, via electronic

mail, asking Highveld to confirm that it

has served the sections B, C, and D

submissions on all parties to the

proceeding. Highveld responded, via

electronic mail, that because the

shipment to the petitioners was so large,

it would take extra time to arrive via

express mail. The Department

subsequently learned—through its own

inquiries with the involved express mail

company—that the sections B, C, and D

submissions were shipped late.

On March 8, 2001, the Department

issued a supplemental questionnaire for

Highveld’s Section A response. On

March 12, 2001, petitioners submitted

comments on Highveld’s sections B, C,

and D responses. On March 15, 2001,

the Department issued a supplemental

questionnaire for Highveld’s sections B,

C, and D responses, along with several

additional questions for Highveld’s

section A response. In this

questionnaire, we asked Highveld to

report data for the twelve expenses

missing from the majority of its U.S.

sales observations. We also repeated our

instruction to Highveld to report

CONNUM-specific cost information that

accounts for cost differences for each of

the physical characteristics defined by

the Department. These instructions

directed Highveld to rely not only on its

existing financial and cost accounting

records, but on any other information

which would allow it to calculate a

reasonable allocation of its costs. On

March 16, 2001—eighteen days after the

original due date of February 26, 2001—

the Department finally received a

properly submitted copy of Highveld’s

required home market sales, U.S. sales,

and COP data.

On March 26, 2001, at Highveld’s

request, the Department approved an

extension of the deadline for submitting

the supplemental questionnaire

response for sections B and C to March

29, 2001. Also on March 26, 2001, the

Department received Highveld’s

response to the Department’s section A

supplemental questionnaire, issued on

March 8, 2001. Again, Highveld failed to

timely serve either proprietary or public

versions of its response on the

petitioners. The public version of this

submission was withheld from the

record as a consequence of the following

APO deficiencies: (1) it contained

bracketed information that had not been

blacked out; (2) bracketed information

was not summarized or ranged; and (3)

relevant case information was not

included in the upper right-hand corner

of the first page as prescribed by section

351.303(d)(2) of the Department’s

regulations. On March 29, 2001, the

Department issued a second

supplemental questionnaire for sections

B and C. On March 30, 2001, the

Department sent a letter to Highveld

addressing the deficiencies of

Highveld’s supplemental section A

questionnaire response submitted on

March 26, 2001, asking Highveld to refile its supplemental section A

response—revised to comply with the

Department’s requirements—by no later

than April 3, 2001. This letter also

warned Highveld that if it failed to

provide accurately the information

requested within the time provided, the

Department might be required to base its

findings on the facts available, and that

if Highveld failed to cooperate with the

Department by not acting to the best of

its ability to comply with a request for

information, the Department could use

information adverse to Highveld’s

interest in conducting its analysis.

Also on March 30, 2001—one day

after the due date of March 29, 2001—

the Department received the narrative

portions of Highveld’s response to the

section B and C portions of the

supplemental questionnaire issued on

March 15, 2001. Highveld again failed to

submit the required home market or

U.S. sales data to either the Department

or the petitioners. On April 2, 2001—

three days after the due date of March

30, 2001—the Department received the

narrative portions of Highveld’s

response to the section D portion of the

supplemental questionnaire issued on

March 15, 2001 (Supplemental D

response). Highveld again failed to

submit the required cost of production

data to either the Department or the

petitioners. Furthermore, in its narrative

response, Highveld indicated that its

cost of production data set would not

include the unique product costs

22176 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

requested in the Department’s March 15,

2001 supplemental questionnaire. The

only explanation offered by Highveld

was that it does not account for cost in

this manner. Highveld failed to offer any

explanation as to why it did not

calculate appropriate cost differences

for the physical characteristics defined

by the Department as instructed in the

Department’s supplemental

questionnaire.

On April 2, 2001, the Department

contacted Highveld’s staff person by

telephone to inquire as to the location

of the revised data sets which should

have accompanied Highveld’s narrative

responses to the supplemental

questionnaire for sections B, C, and D.

Highveld’s staff person indicated that

the revised data sets would be

submitted with its response to the

Department’s second supplemental

questionnaire for sections B and C

issued on March 29, 2001 (see

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Telephone

Conference with Highveld Official,’’

dated April 3, 2001).

On April 6—three days after the due

date of April 3, 2001—the Department

received the revised portions of

Highveld’s response to the section A

supplemental questionnaire issued on

March 8, 2001. Also on April 6, the

Department received Highveld’s revised

data sets which should have

accompanied Highveld’s narrative

responses to the supplemental

questionnaire for sections B, C, and D,

originally due on March 29 (sections B

and C) and 30 (section D), 2001. Both

the sales and cost of production data

sets contained major deficiencies which

the Department—in its March 29, 2001

supplemental questionnaire—had

specifically asked Highveld to remedy.

Specifically, Highveld again failed to

report data for the twelve expenses

missing from the majority of its U.S.

sales observations, and failed to assign

a control number for each unique

product in the sales data sets, as

requested in the Department’s March 15,

2001 supplemental questionnaire.

Furthermore, Highveld’s COP data set

did not include the unique product

costs requested in the Department’s

March 15, 2001 supplemental

questionnaire. Finally, on April 6—one

day after the due date of April 5, 2001—

the Department received Highveld’s

response to the Department’s second

supplemental questionnaire for sections

B and C issued on March 29, 2001. In

this response, Highveld indicated that

the data for the twelve expenses missing

from the majority of its U.S. sales had

to be supplied by an affiliated U.S.

reseller, and that they would be made

available during verification.

On April 10, 2001, we sent a second

supplemental questionnaire to Highveld

asking it to resubmit its cost data in

accordance with the Department’s

instructions by April 24, 2001. On April

17, 2001, we sent Highveld a letter

requiring that it submit, by April 27,

2001, certain information that was

missing from its sections B & C

response.

Period of Investigation

The Period of Investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1999 through September 30,

2000. This period corresponds to the

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., November 2000), and is in

accordance with our regulations. See

section 351.204(b)(1) of the

Department’s regulations.

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 these investigations, regardless

of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTS), 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., ASTM specifications

A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).

• Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute

(AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearings steels, as defined in

the HTS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the

HTS) 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 HTS.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the HTS 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22177

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 flat-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,

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 HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Facts Available (FA)

Highveld

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

that ‘‘if an interested party or any other

person: (A) withholds information that

has been requested by the administering

authority; (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for the

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782;

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title; or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i),

the administering authority and the

Commission shall, subject to section

782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.’’

In this case, Highveld failed, within

the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(B) of

the Act, to provide requested

information in the form and manner

requested. Notably, Highveld failed, in

its original section C response, to report

any data for international freight

(INTNFRU), marine insurance

(MARNINU), U.S. inland freight from

port to warehouse (INLFPWU), U.S.

warehousing expense (USWAREHU),

U.S. inland freight from warehouse to

unaffiliated customer (INLFWCU), U.S.

inland insurance (USINSURU), other

U.S. transportation expense

(USOTHTRU), U.S. customs duty

(USDUTYU), commissions (COMMU),

indirect selling expenses incurred in

country of manufacture (INDIRSU),

inventory carrying costs incurred in the

United States (INVCARU), and U.S.

repacking cost (REPACKU), for the

majority of its U.S. sales. These

expenses are essential to the

Department’s calculation of U.S. price.

Depending on the type, these expenses

are used to adjust the reported starting

sale price for each observation in the

U.S. sales data set. Without data for

these expenses, it is impossible for the

Department to calculate U.S. prices from

starting sales prices. We issued

Highveld a supplemental questionnaire

requesting that it correct these

deficiencies, but it failed to do so.

Highveld responded that it did not have

this information, that such information

must be supplied by an affiliated

reseller in the United States, and that

the information would be provided at

verification. Highveld offered no reason

as to why the data was not being

provided within the deadlines provided

by the Department, nor did it offer or

suggest any alternative format for

providing the needed information.

Furthermore, Highveld failed to report

the sales price from its U.S. affiliate to

the first unaffilited customer for these

sales. As this data is missing from the

majority of Highveld’s reported U.S.

sales, it is impossible for the

Department to calculate U.S. prices for

the majority of Highveld’s U.S. sales.

Highveld’s failure to provide the

requested sales data thus renders its

U.S. sales response unusable for this

preliminary determination.

Highveld also failed, in its original

and supplemental section D responses,

to provide unique product costs that

account for cost differences related to

the physical characteristics defined by

the Department. Highveld instead

reported its costs by steel grade,

differentiating those costs only by grade.

That methodology does not provide

product-specific COP information, nor

does it provide the Department with

information to calculate a difference in

merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment to

account for differences in physical

characteristics beyond product grade

when comparing sales of similar

merchandise. Without product-specific

COPs, we are unable to determine

whether sales of the subject

merchandise were made at less than

COP as directed by section 773(b)(1) of

the Act. As a result, we have no way of

knowing whether to disregard certain

sales from the calculation of normal

value (NV) for falling below COP or

whether to disregard all sales of the

subject merchandise and base NV on

CV. Furthermore, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, when

comparing United States sales with

home market sales, we may determine

that the merchandise sold in the United

States does not have the same physical

characteristics as the merchandise sold

in the home market and that those

differences have an effect on prices. In

such instances, we are required to make

reasonable allowances for these

differences (‘‘DIFMER’’) in calculating

NV. Without the ability to make the

appropriate DIFMER adjustment, it is

impossible for us to appropriately

calculate NV. Thus, without productspecific COP information, and

information necessary for calculating a

DIFMER adjustment, we are unable to

determine the appropriate basis for NV

or to calculate NV. As noted in the Case

History section above, we issued

Highveld a supplemental questionnaire

on March 15, 2001, requesting that it

correct these deficiencies, but it failed to

do so. Instead, Highveld stated simply

that it does not account for cost in this

manner. Highveld’s failure to provide

the requested data renders its cost

response unusable for this preliminary

determination.

As also noted in detail in the Case

History section above, Highveld failed,

within the meaning of section

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, to provide

requested information prior to several

deadlines for the submission of such

information, or in the form and manner

requested. Highveld’s questionnaire

responses were often fraught with APO

formatting deficiencies, including

improper bracketing of proprietary

information, improper labeling of

documents containing proprietary

information, and missing language

concerning the release of proprietary

information under APO. Furthermore,

the majority of Highveld’s questionnaire

responses were submitted after the

applicable deadlines. In such cases, the

Department received Highveld’s

submissions anywhere from one to

eighteen days late. Notably, Highveld’s

sales and cost data sets—which are

absolutely crucial for the Department’s

analysis—were submitted eighteen days

late for the initial sections B, C, & D

response, eight days late for the

supplemental sections B & C response,

and seven days late for the

supplemental section D response. These

responses and accompanying data were

similarly served late on the petitioners.

Where the Department determines

that a response to a request for

information does not comply with the

request, section 782(d) of the Act

provides that the Department will so

22178 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

inform the party submitting the

response and will, to the extent

practicable, provide that party the

opportunity to remedy or explain the

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy

the deficiency within the applicable

time limits, the Department may, subject

to section 782(e), disregard all or part of

the original and subsequent responses,

as appropriate. Section 782(e) provides

that the Department ‘‘shall not decline

to consider information that is

submitted by an interested party and is

necessary to the determination but does

not meet all the applicable requirements

established by the administering

authority’’ if the information is timely,

can be verified, and is not so incomplete

that it cannot be used, and if the

interested party acted to the best of its

ability in providing the information.

Where all of these conditions are met,

the statute requires the Department to

use the information, if it can do so

without undue difficulty.

As noted above, Highveld failed, on

numerous occasions, to provide its

questionnaire responses to the

Department or other parties to this

proceeding by the applicable deadlines,

in the form and manner requested. As

noted in the Case History section above,

the Department provided Highveld with

numerous opportunities to remedy or

explain major deficiencies in its

submissions. To this end, the

Department issued several supplemental

questionnaires, allowed Highveld

several chances to revise and resubmit

documents in order that such

documents might comply with the

Department’s regulations governing

formatting and filing requirements, sent

Highveld multiple letters, facsimiles,

and electronic mail explaining and reexplaining the Department’s concerns

over the deficiencies in Highveld’s

submissions, held a teleconference to

explain the Department’s concerns over

the deficiencies in Highveld’s

submissions, sent Highveld copies of

relevant regulations and guidelines for

the submission of documents to the

record, and granted Highveld several

extensions to deadlines for its

submissions. Despite all of this,

Highveld has continued to submit its

responses after applicable deadlines.

This pattern has significantly impeded

the Department’s ability to conduct a

timely analysis, limiting the

Department’s ability to issue

supplemental questionnaires to address

questions and deficiencies related to

Highveld’s submissions. It has also

made it virtually impossible for the

petitioners or other interested parties to

submit comments on Highveld’s

responses in a timely manner, so that

such comments might be given

appropriate consideration in the

Department’s analyses. Moreover, as

discussed above, Highveld has also

failed to remedy the major substantive

deficiencies in its U.S. sales and COP

data sets, leaving the data sets so

incomplete that they cannot be used to

calculate a preliminary margin for

Highveld. Consequently, we are

disregarding Highveld’s sales and COP

data in our analysis.

In light of Highveld’s failure to

provide requested information

necessary to calculate dumping margins

in this case, in accordance with section

776(a) of the Act, we are forced to resort

to total facts available for this

preliminary determination.

According to section 776(b) of the

Act, if the Department finds that an

interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate

by not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,’’

the Department may use information

that is adverse to the interests of the

party as facts otherwise available.

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to

ensure that the party does not obtain a

more favorable result by failing to

cooperate than if it had cooperated

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative

Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA,

H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d

Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ‘‘an

affirmative finding of bad faith on the

part of the respondent is not required

before the Department may make an

adverse inference.’’ Antidumping

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19,

1997) (Final Rule).

In this case, we have determined that

Highveld has not acted to the best of its

ability in responding to the

Department’s request for complete U.S.

sales data, including data for the twelve

expenses missing from the majority of

Highveld’s U.S. sales observations. As

noted in the Case History section above,

we repeated our request for such data in

a supplemental questionnaire, but

Highveld failed to provide it. Highveld’s

explanation was that it did not have this

information, that such information must

be supplied by an affiliated reseller in

the United States, and that the

information would be provided at

verification. It is Highveld’s

responsibility to ensure that all

information essential to the

Department’s analyses of Highveld’s

U.S. sales is provided to the

Department, regardless of whether such

information must be supplied by an

affiliated reseller in the United States.

See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip from Mexico, 64

FR 30790, 30803 (June 8, 1999). It is also

Highveld’s responsibility to notify the

Department, in writing, within fourteen

days if it expects to have difficulties in

submitting such information in

accordance with section 782(c)(1) of the

Act, and to suggest alternative forms in

which it could submit the information.

Highveld made no such notification, nor

suggested any alternative reporting

methodologies.

We have also determined that

Highveld has not acted to the best of its

ability in responding to the

Department’s request for productspecific cost information that takes into

account physical differences between

the products. As noted in the Case

History section above, in our

supplemental questionnaire, dated

March 15, 2001, we repeated our

instruction to Highveld to report

product-specific cost information that

accounts for cost differences for each of

the physical characteristics. These

instructions directed Highveld to rely

not only on its existing financial and

cost accounting records, but on any

other information which would allow it

to calculate a reasonable allocation of its

costs. It is standard procedure for the

Department to request product-specific

cost data and we routinely receive such

information from respondents. In the

Department’s experience, companies

have information which allows them to

calculate a reasonable estimate of the

costs to make a given product, as such

cost information is necessary to

determine whether it is profitable to

make the product. Even if a company

does not identify product-specific costs

in its normal financial and cost

accounting records, it should be able to

make reasonable allocations of its costs

among distinct products through the use

of other product and production

information. Highveld failed to offer any

explanation as to why it did not make

such reasonable allocations.

Under section 782(c) of the Act, a

respondent has a responsibility not only

to notify the Department if it is unable

to provide requested information, but

also to provide a ‘‘full explanation and

suggested alternative forms.’’ In

response to our requests for productspecific cost data, Highveld simply

stated that it does not account for cost

in this manner. (See Supplemental D

response.) Cooperation in an

antidumping investigation requires

more than a simple statement that a

respondent cannot provide certain

information from its previously

prepared records; the burden to

establish that it has acted to the best of

its ability rests upon the respondent. As

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22179

noted above, to meet that burden a

respondent must explain what steps it

has taken to comply with the

information request, and propose

alternative methodologies for getting the

necessary information. See Allied-Signal

Aerospace v. United States, 996 F.2d

1185, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Highveld

has failed to do either.

Moreover, we find that Highveld’s

claim that it is unable to provide cost

information in the manner requested by

the Department to be inconsistent with

its other statements and information on

the record of this case. For example,

Highveld closely tracks actual

production for yield purposes and for

purposes of identifying particular coils

for warehouse identification, as is

evidenced by the yield information

maintained by the company and the

identifying tags affixed to each finished

product. Highveld also has budgets,

manufacturing standards, and

engineering standards for specific

products listed in the company’s

product brochure. Highveld likely

develops production plans involving the

identification of certain products as

produced from certain raw materials on

certain production lines using specific

engineering standards. Further, to

maintain International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) certification, we

believe that Highveld must maintain

contemporaneous records of production

and processes to insure the quality of

the products it produces. While certain

of Highveld’s records do not contain the

information requested on separate

product costs, the company could have

developed a reasonable allocation

methodology to allocate costs to

products on a control number

(CONNUM)-specific basis using the

company’s normal cost accounting

records as a starting point. The

Department requested that Highveld

look beyond its financial and cost

accounting records and select from a

variety of available data using, for

example, engineering standards, direct

labor hours, machine hours, or

budgeting systems for allocating costs to

products on a CONNUM-specific basis.

Highveld failed to develop any system

to allocate costs according to these

criteria.

Given (i) Highveld’s repeated failure

to provide data for twelve expenses for

the majority of its U.S. sales

observations; and (ii) Highveld’s

repeated failure to provide productspecific cost data that takes into account

physical differences in the product or to

provide any meaningful explanation of

why such data could not be provided,

we preliminarily determine that

Highveld did not cooperate to the best

of its ability. Accordingly, we have used

an adverse inference in selecting the

facts available to determine Highveld’s

margin.

Iscor/Saldanha

In this proceeding, Saldanha and Iscor

declined to respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. Because

Saldanha and Iscor provided no

information, sections 782(d) and (e) of

the Act are not relevant, and the

Department must resort to the use of

facts available for these respondents, in

accordance with 776(a) of the Act.

Furthermore, as Iscor and Saldanha

declined to respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire, we

preliminarily determine that both

companies failed to cooperate to the

best of their abilities within the meaning

of section 776(b) of the Act.

Accordingly, we have used an adverse

inference in selecting the facts available

to determine the appropriate margin for

Iscor and Saldanha.

Corroboration

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

where the Department selects from

among the facts otherwise available and

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ such

as the petition, the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate that

information from independent sources

reasonably at the Department’s disposal.

The SAA accompanying the URAA,

H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.

(1994), states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means

to determine that the information used

has probative value. See SAA at 870. In

this proceeding, we considered the

petition as the most appropriate

information on the record upon which

to base the dumping calculation. In

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, we sought to corroborate the data

contained in the petition. We reviewed

the adequacy and accuracy of the

information in the petition during our

pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to

the extent appropriate information (e.g.,

import statistics, cost data and foreign

market research reports) was available

for this purpose. See Initiation Notice, at

77571. For purposes of the preliminary

determination, we attempted to further

corroborate the information in the

petition. To the extent practicable, we

reexamined the export price, home

market price, and CV data provided for

the margin calculations in the petition

in light of information obtained during

the investigation, and found that it has

probative value (see Memorandum to

the File, ‘‘Corroboration of Secondary

Information,’’ dated April 23, 2001). As

adverse facts available, we have

preliminarily assigned Highveld, Iscor

and Saldanha the rate of 9.28 percent—

the margin calculated from the petition

and used for initiation.

Affiliation

In accordance with section 771(33)(E)

of the Act, the Department considers

affiliated any person directly or

indirectly owning, controlling, or

holding with power to vote, five percent

or more of the outstanding voting stock

or shares of any organization and such

organization. In the contemporaneous

countervailing duty investigation of HR

products from South Africa, the

Department noted that respondent Iscor

controls 50 percent of the voting

ownership in respondent Saldanha. See

Notice of Preliminary Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and

Alignment with Final Antidumping

Duty Determinations: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from

South Africa, 66 FR 20261 (April 20,

2001). Consequently, and in accordance

with section 771(33)(E) of the Act, we

conclude that these companies are

affiliated for purposes of this

proceeding.

Collapsing

Section 351.401(f)(1) of the

Department’s regulations provides that

two or more affiliated producers will be

treated as a single entity in an

antidumping proceeding if: (i) the

producers have production facilities for

similar or identical products that would

not require substantial retooling of

either facility in order to restructure

manufacturing priorities, and (ii) the

Department concludes that there is a

significant potential for the

manipulation of price or production.

Section 351.401(f)(2) of the

Department’s regulations provides that

in identifying a significant potential for

the manipulation of price or production,

the factors the Department may consider

include: (i) the level of common

ownership; (ii) the extent to which

managerial employees or board

members of one firm sit on the board of

directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii)

whether operations are intertwined,

such as through the sharing of sales

information, involvement in production

and pricing decisions, the sharing of

facilities or employees, or significant

transactions between the affiliated

producers.

We have analyzed these criteria with

respect to Iscor and Saldanha.

According to information available on

the public record of the

contemporaneous countervailing duty

investigation of HR products from South

Africa, Iscor is a 50 percent shareholder

in Saldanha, and is in a position to

22180 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

exercise control of Saldanha’s assets.

Furthermore, both companies produce

the subject merchandise. See the public

version of Memo to File, ‘‘CrossOwnership of Iscor, Ltd., in Saldanha

Steel Ltd.,’’ dated April 13, 2001 (case

number C–791–810), which has been

placed on the record of this

investigation. In light of these facts, and

because Iscor’s and Saldanha’s refusal to

cooperate in this investigation has

impeded our analysis of this issue, the

Department infers that there is

significant potential for the

manipulation of prices or production

between these two companies within

the meaning of section 351.401(f)(2) of

the Department’s regulations. Thus, we

preliminarily determine, in accordance

with 351.401(f)(1) of the Department’s

regulations, that Saldanha and Iscor

should be treated as a single entity for

purposes of this antidumping

proceeding, and have determined one

dumping margin for this single entity.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we intend to verify information

to be used in making our final

determination.

All Others

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. This provision

contemplates that we weight-average

margins other than facts available

margins to establish the ‘‘all others’’

rate. Where the data do not permit

weight-averaging such rates, the SAA, at

873, provides that we may use other

reasonable methods. Because the

petition contained only an estimated

price-to-CV dumping margin, which the

Department adjusted for purposes of

initiation, there are no additional

estimated margins available with which

to create the ‘‘all others’’ rate. Therefore,

we applied the published margin of 9.28

percent as the ‘‘all others’’ rate.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, the Department will direct

the Customs Service to suspend

liquidation of all entries of HR products

from South Africa that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication in the Federal Register. We

will instruct the Customs Service to

require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond equal to the estimated preliminary

dumping margin indicated in the chart

below. This suspension of liquidation

will remain in effect until further notice.

The preliminary weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Margin

(percent)

Exporter/Manufacturer:

Highveld ................................ 9.28

Iscor/Saldanha ...................... 9.28

All Others .............................. 9.28

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. 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 these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the verification

reports. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five 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.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In

the event that the Department receives

requests for hearings from parties to

several HR products cases, the

Department may schedule a single

hearing to encompass all those cases.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a

hearing, or participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination no later than 75

days after the date of this preliminary

determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(d) 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. 01–10851 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–814]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Argentina

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance Handley or Charles Riggle at

(202) 482–0631 and (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 Department of

Commerce (the Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (HRS) from Argentina are

being, or are likely to be sold, in the

United States at less than fair value

(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of