Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22163

information relied upon in making our

final determination.

All Others Rate

Recognizing the impracticality of

examining all producers and exporters

in all cases, section 735(c)(5)(A) of the

Act provides for the use of an ‘‘all

others’’ rate, which is applied to noninvestigated firms. See SAA at 873. This

section states that the all others rate

shall generally be an amount equal to

the weighted average of the weightedaverage dumping margins established

for exporters and producers

individually investigated, excluding any

zero and de minimis margins, and any

margins based entirely upon the facts

available. Therefore, we have

preliminarily assigned to all other

exporters of Indian HRS, an ‘‘all others’’

margin that is the weighted average of

the margins calculated for Ispat and

Essar.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service (Customs Service) to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

HRS from India 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withdrawn from warehouse, for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 the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which NV exceeds

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

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Ispat Industries Ltd ..................... 39.36

Essar Steel Ltd ........................... 34.55

All Others .................................... 34.75

Disclosure

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

to the parties of the proceedings in these

investigations in accordance with 19

CFR 351.224(b).

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

sales at LTFV determination. If our final

antidumping determination is

affirmative, the ITC will determine

whether the imports covered by that

determination 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 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. Further, we would

appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments would provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public version of any such

comments 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 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 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.

As noted above, the final

determination will be issued within 135

days after the date of the publication of

the preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and

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 Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10848 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–560–812]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Indonesia

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Manning or Nova Daly at (202)

482–3936 and (202) 482–0989,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 4, 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 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (HRS) from Indonesia are

being sold, 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,

22164 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 hot-rolled

steel from the Netherlands.

2Section 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.

2000) (Initiation Notice).1 Since the

initiation of these investigations, 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

HRS from the Netherlands. In that

investigation we received comments

from Duracell Global Business

Management Group on December 11,

2000; from Energizer Battery Co., Inc. on

December 15, 2000; from Bouffard Metal

Goods, Inc., and Truelove & Maclean,

Inc., on December 18, 2000; from Corus

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

(collectively referred to as ‘‘Corus’’) and

Thomas Steel Strip Corporation 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 HRS

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, 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 B–7 and C–7

(January 4, 2001). These fields are used

in the model match program to prevent

matches of prime merchandise to nonprime merchandise.

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued an antidumping questionnaire to

Krakatau, the mandatory respondent in

Indonesia.2 See January 3, 2001

respondent selection memo. On January

15, 2001, we received a faxed letter from

Krakatau requesting an extension of

time to respond to section A of the

Department’s questionnaire. On January

18, 2001, we received Krakatau’s

official, mailed section A extension

request. On January 23, 2001, the

Department granted Krakatau an

extension of time to respond to section

A of the questionnaire and notified

Krakatau that submitting documents to

the record of this proceeding via fax is

not an acceptable method of submission

and that such documents would not be

accepted on an official basis. In the

January 23, 2001 letter to Krakatau, we

provided detailed information

concerning the appropriate manner of

submitting information or requests to

the record, including a discussion of the

regulations guiding the official

submission of information.

On February 5, 2001, we received

Krakatau’s response to section A of the

Department’s questionnaire. Also on

February 5, 2001, the Department

received a faxed letter from Krakatau

requesting an extension of time to

respond to sections B, C, and D of the

questionnaire. On February 8, 2001, the

Department sent a letter to Krakatau

granting its request for an extension of

the deadline. In the letter, we again

instructed Krakatau to follow the proper

procedures for submitting requests to

the record.

On February 23, 2001, the Department

received a letter from Krakatau

requesting a further extension of time to

respond to sections B, C, and D of the

questionnaire. The Department

subsequently sent a letter, dated

February 23, 2001, denying Krakatau’s

request for a further extension due to

the limited time available in this

investigation and the impending

preliminary determination. On February

28, 2001, fifty-five days after issuing the

antidumping questionnaire, the

Department received Krakatau’s

response to sections B, C, and D of the

questionnaire and non-functional sales

databases.

On March 1, 2001, the Department

sent Krakatau a request for

supplemental information regarding

section A of the Department’s

questionnaire. On March 2, 2001, the

Department received a letter from the

petitioners notifying the Department

that Krakatau had failed to serve them

a computer diskette containing the sales

and cost databases, which was due

February 28, 2001. On March 5, 2001,

the Department sent a letter to Krakatau

notifying it that the sales databases it

submitted to the Department on

February 28, 2001 were not functional

and provided instructions on the proper

format for submitting computer data. In

addition, this letter instructed Krakatau

to send copies of the revised home and

U.S. market sales databases to the

petitioners. Sixty-four days after issuing

the questionnaire, the Department

received, on March 9, 2001, the revised

sales databases, in addition to the cost

reconciliation package and an

unsolicited addendum to the February

28, 2001 section D response. However,

Krakatau submitted only three copies of

the proprietary version of its response,

rather than the six copies required by

the Department’s regulations. In

addition, Krakatau failed to submit a

public version of these documents.

On March 12, 2001, the Department

received Krakatau’s response to the

Department’s supplemental section A

questionnaire. On March 14, 2001, the

Department sent Krakatau a

supplemental questionnaire regarding

section D of the Department’s

questionnaire. On March 15, 2001, the

Department sent a letter to Krakatau

stating that its March 9, 2001

submission did not contain the correct

number of proprietary and public

copies. In that letter, we again provided

Krakatau with the same detailed

information concerning the correct

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22165

procedures for submitting information

as was originally provided on January

23, 2001. On March 16, 2001, the

Department sent Krakatau a request for

supplemental information covering

sections B and C of the questionnaire.

The Department issued a second

supplemental section D questionnaire

on March 23, 2001. Shortly thereafter,

on March 30, 2001, the Department

received Krakatau’s supplemental

response to section D of the

questionnaire. On April 2, 2001, the

Department received Krakatau’s

supplemental response to sections B

and C of the Department’s

questionnaire. However, the software

program Krakatau used to compress the

size of its supplemental data and the

inconsistent use of different date

formats in the home market invoice date

field, caused the Department a

significant delay in accessing the

supplemental data for our analysis. In

addition, one of the petitioners notified

the Department that Krakatau failed to

serve it with a diskette containing the

supplemental sales databases, which

was due April 2, 2001. Since the date of

the Department’s preliminary

determination was approximately three

weeks away, we provided this petitioner

with a copy of the supplemental data we

received from Krakatau. See

Memorandum to the File, dated April 2,

2001. On April 16, 2001, the

Department issued Krakatau a second

supplemental questionnaire covering

sections B and C, with a due date of

April 26, 2001. Since this due date is

after the preliminary determination (i.e.,

April 23, 2001), the information

received in this response will be taken

into account for the final determination.

Period of Investigation

The POI for this investigation 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).

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 these

investigations is classified in the

HTSUS under the following tariff

classification numbers: 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

classification 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 HTSUS tariff classification

numbers are provided for convenience

and U.S. Customs Service (Customs)

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

22166 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

3Without a proper cost test, it is impossible to

determine whether 20 percent or more of the home

market sales are below cost and hence, would be

excluded from the calculation of NV.

Facts Available

1. Application of Facts Available

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

that, if an interested party (A) withholds

information requested by the

Department, (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadline, or in the

form or manner requested, subject to

sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, (C)

significantly impedes a proceeding, or

(D) provides information that cannot be

verified, the Department shall use,

subject to sections 782(d) 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 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)

the information can be used without

undue difficulties.

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act authorizes the Department to

use an adverse inference, if the

Department finds that an interested

party failed to cooperate by not acting

to the best of its ability to comply with

the request for information. See, e.g.,

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20

(October 16, 1997). Finally, section

776(b) of the Act states that an adverse

inference may include reliance on

information derived from the petition.

See also Statement of Administrative

Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA,

H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994).

For the reasons discussed below, the

Department determines that, in

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(B)

and 776(b) of the Act, the use of adverse

facts available is appropriate for the

preliminary determination for Krakatau.

The evidence on the record establishes

that the use of total facts available for

Krakatau is warranted because Krakatau

failed to provide complete sales and

cost questionnaire responses within the

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

Act. In its initial and supplemental

responses, Krakatau failed to provide

the information in the manner requested

in the Department’s January 4, 2001

antidumping questionnaire, the March

16, 2001 sections B and C supplemental

questionnaire, and the March 14 and 23,

2001 supplemental section D

questionnaires.

We also note that at no time did

Krakatau notify the Department,

pursuant to section 782(c)(1) of the Act,

that it was unable to submit the

information requested in the requested

form and manner, nor did it suggest

alternative forms in which it would be

able to submit the requested

information. Throughout the course of

this antidumping investigation, the

Department gave Krakatau, a pro se

company, assistance and opportunities

to comply with the Department’s

requests for information. Specifically,

taking into consideration the fact that

the respondent is a pro se company, the

Department provided Krakatau detailed

information and guidance on how to

properly calculate and report sales and

cost data and adjustments, granted

Krakatau extensions to reply to requests

for information, and provided an

opportunity to explain and correct the

deficiencies in its responses. However,

at no point in the investigation did

Krakatau notify the Department that it

had any difficulties in submitting the

information in the form and manner

requested, seek guidance on alternative

reporting requirements, or propose an

alternate form for submitting the

required data, as contemplated in

section 782(c)(1) of the Act. Despite the

efforts at assistance on the part of the

Department, Krakatau failed to provide

information reliable enough that it can

serve as a basis for reaching the

applicable determination.

Pursuant to section 782(e)(3) of the

Act, the sales information Krakatau

provided in its initial and supplemental

responses was deficient such that the

Department cannot consider it as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination. Our analysis of

Krakatau’s sales response found

deficiencies that prohibit us from

conducting an accurate model match,

which prevents us from ensuring that

products sold in the U.S. market are

accurately matched to identical or most

similar products sold in the home

market. Without properly matching

products sold in the U.S. and home

markets, we cannot accurately identify

similar matches and, as appropriate,

calculate an accurate difference in

merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment to

account for the differences in the

products being matched. In addition, we

found that Krakatau’s deficiencies in

reporting multiple home and U.S.

market sales adjustments prevent us

from calculating fully adjusted home

and U.S. market prices. Without fully

adjusted home and U.S. market prices,

we are unable to calculate an accurate

dumping margin.

Since these functions are essential

elements to a dumping analysis, we find

that Krakatau’s responses cannot serve

as a reliable basis for this preliminary

determination. Specifically, Krakatau

failed to provide: (1) Accurate quality

classifications for sales in the home and

U.S. market; (2) minimum specified

yield strength classifications for sales in

the home and U.S. market; (3) a method

for identifying sales of non-foreign like

product in its home market sales

database; and (4) an explanation and

appropriate supporting documents for

how it calculated brokerage and

handling, short-term interests rates

(which are used in the calculation of

imputed credit expenses), advertising,

technical service, indirect selling

expenses, inventory carrying costs, and

packing. See March 16, 2001 sales

supplemental questionnaire and April 2,

2001 sales supplemental response. See

also Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga

to Bernard T. Carreau, Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Indonesia: Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: The Use

of Facts Available for PT Krakatau Steel

and Corroboration of Secondary

Information, dated April 23, 2001

(Krakatau Facts Available

Memorandum).

Regarding Krakatau’s cost response,

our analysis found deficiencies in the

initial and supplemental responses that

prohibit us from accurately determining

Krakatau’s COP for each of the control

numbers (CONNUMs) reported in its

home and U.S. sales databases. The

primary problem is that Krakatau

calculated a company-wide average

cost, and then to obtain individual

product costs, applied this average cost

to the cumulative yield for each

individual production process each

product (by CONNUM) passed through,

rather than calculating product-specific

costs. Without product-specific costs,

the Department is unable to accurately

determine whether home markets sales

were sold at prices above, or below, the

COP. Without a proper cost test, the

Department is unable to calculate the

proper NV in price-to-price

comparisons.3 In addition, the absence

of product-specific costs prevents us

from calculating a valid DIFMER

(assuming that the correct sales were

selected for comparison). Lastly, we

note that Krakatau failed to provide a

COP for certain of its reported home

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22167

market CONNUMs and failed to provide

a CV for certain of its reported U.S.

market CONNUMs. For home market

sales without a COP, we cannot perform

the cost test to determine whether these

sales were sold above their COP. For

U.S. sales without a reported CV, we

have no means of determining NV if

there are no home market sales matches.

Because of Krakatau’s failure to

provide product-specific costs that

account for the physical characteristics

of unique products, we find that

Krakatau’s cost responses cannot serve

as a reliable basis for this preliminary

determination. Specifically, Krakatau

failed to provide: (1) Costs that account

for differences in quality, carbon,

strength, thickness, width, pickling,

edge trim, and pattern; (2) costs that

account for differences in the chemistry

or alloy content of specific grades of

steel; (3) costs that account for

differences in individual production

processes; (4) the financial statements of

its affiliates or of its parent corporation;

(5) an explanation or supporting

documents for the adjustments it made

to the calculation of the scrap credit and

direct material cost for ‘‘Sponge Iron

Consumption;’’ (6) an explanation of

why it did not incorporate the daily

time utilization reports in its cost

methodology; (7) a COP for multiple

CONNUMs contained in the home

market sales database; and (8) a CV for

multiple CONNUMs contained in the

U.S. market sales database. As a result,

the information on the record is

insufficient for purposes of calculating a

dumping margin. See March 14 and

March 23, 2001 cost supplemental

questionnaires. See also Krakatau Facts

Available Memorandum.

Of the many deficiencies in

Krakatau’s cost response, the most

problematic deficiency is that Krakatau

calculated one company-wide average

cost and then, to obtain individual

product costs, applied this average cost

to the cumulative yield for the

individual path each product (by

CONNUM) passed through. The

cumulative yield of subsequent cost

centers through which a product passes

will account for the losses that occur at

those cost centers. However, this

methodology does not account for

processing differences within each cost

center. For example, within the hot

rolling mill, products with different

thicknesses are not differentiated in

terms of cost based on their rolling

times. In another example, the costs

associated with the pickling process are

not assigned to products based on

whether or not the product was pickled,

but rather only by applying the yield

loss associated with the pickling cost

center to the average cost of hot rolling.

As discussed above, the failure to

provide product-specific costs makes it

impossible to (1) conduct the sales

below cost test, (2) calculate the 20%

comparability test used in the DIFMER

adjustment, and (3) calculate CV.

Moreover, we find that the cumulative

effect of these errors is to erode our

confidence in Krakatau’s response as a

whole. Therefore, pursuant to section

782(e)(3) of the Act, the Department

finds that the information on the record,

as discussed above, is so incomplete

that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for

reaching the applicable determination.

We also find that the application of an

adverse inference in this case is

appropriate. Krakatau failed to act to the

best of its ability to comply with the

Department’s requests for information

when it failed to provide: (1) Accurate

quality and yield strength

characteristics (which prevents the

Department from conducting an

accurate model match), (2) a method for

identifying sales of non-foreign like

product in its home market sales

database, (3) an explanation and

appropriate supporting documents for

how it calculated certain sales expense

adjustments, and (4) product-specific

costs. Despite the Department’s

directions in the original and

supplemental questionnaires, and the

extensions granted, Krakatau made no

effort to provide any explanation or

propose an alternate form of submitting

the data. See Krakatau Facts Available

Memorandum.

Furthermore, the information cannot

be obtained elsewhere. Without this

critical information, the Department

cannot accurately determine the

dumping margin for Krakatau. In

addition, as outlined in the Case History

section above, the company’s failure to

properly submit information and data to

the record of this proceeding delayed

the Department in making critical

decisions involving the calculation of

Krakatau’s dumping margin. The

company was put on notice by

Department’s extension letters and other

correspondence that failure to properly

submit information and data to the

Department constituted a deficiency

which could result in the use of facts

available. See the Department’s letters to

Krakatau dated January 23, February 8,

March 5, and March 15, 2001.

Krakatau’s submission of information

is so incomplete that it cannot serve as

a reliable basis for reaching the

applicable determination. Its failure to

comply with the Department’s

procedures for submitting information

and data to the record of this

proceeding, and its repeated failure to

provide information to the Department

which could not be obtained elsewhere,

demonstrate a consistent pattern of

unresponsiveness and a failure to

cooperate to the best of its ability with

the Department’s requests for

information. Despite the Department’s

directions in the questionnaires and the

letters granting extensions, Krakatau did

not provide the information requested

by the Department, made no effort to

explain any difficulties it was having in

supplying the information, and did not

propose an alternate form of submitting

the information. For these reasons, we

find that Krakatau did not act to the best

of its ability in responding to the

Department’s requests for information,

see, e.g., Circular Stainless Steel Hollow

Products, and that, consequently, an

adverse inference is warranted under

section 776(b) of the Act. See Krakatau

Facts Available Memorandum.

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,

the Department is basing Krakatau’s

margin on adverse facts available for

purposes of the preliminary

determination. Section 776(b) of the Act

authorizes the Department to use as

adverse facts available information

derived from the petition, the final

determination from the LTFV

investigation, a previous administrative

review, or any other information placed

on the record. As adverse facts

available, we are applying the margin

for Indonesia published in the

Department’s notice of initiation, which

is 59.25 percent. 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)) (HRS Initiation

Notice).

2. Selection and Corroboration of Facts

Available

Section 776(b) of the Act states that an

adverse inference may include reliance

on information derived from the

petition. See also SAA at 829–831.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that,

when the Department relies on

secondary information (such as the

petition) in using the facts otherwise

available, it must, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that information

from independent sources that are

reasonably at its disposal.

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

22168 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

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).

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

calculations 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 calculations indicated that the

information in the petition has

probative value, as certain information

included in the margin calculations in

the petition is from public sources

concurrent with the relevant POI. For

purposes of the preliminary

determination, we attempted to further

corroborate the information in the

petition. We re-examined the EP and NV

data which formed the basis for the

margin in the petition in light of

information obtained during the

investigation and, to the extent

practicable, found that it has probative

value.

Accordingly, in selecting adverse facts

available with respect to Krakatau, the

Department determined to apply a

margin rate of 59.25 percent, the margin

published in the Department’s notice of

initiation.

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. 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

59.25 percent as the ‘‘all others’’ rate.

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 Indonesia 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. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

PT Krakatau Steel ...................... 59.25

All Others .................................... 59.25

Disclosure

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

to the parties of the proceedings in these

investigations in accordance with 19

CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

sales at LTFV determination. If our final

antidumping determination is

affirmative, the ITC will determine

whether the imports covered by that

determination 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 for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10849 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–834–806]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Kazakhstan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determination in the less than fair value

investigation of certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products from

Kazakhstan.

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published a

notice of initiation of an antidumping

duty investigation of certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products from

Kazakhstan. This investigation covers

one producer of the subject