[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22194-22199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10854]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-485-806]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Riker or Charles Riggle at 
(202) 482-0186, (202) 482-0650, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office 5, Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 
(2000.)

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain hot-rolled carbon steel 
flat products (HRS) from Romania are being, or are likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in 
section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on December 4, 2000. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, India, Indonesia, 
Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the People's Republic of China, Romania, 
South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine, 65 FR 77568 (December 12, 
2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of these 
investigations,\1\ the following events have occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in these investigations are Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, Gallatin Steel Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV Steel 
Company, INc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel 
Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group (a unit of USX Corporation), 
Weirton Steel Corporation, the Independent Steelworkers Union, and 
the United Steelworkers of America (collectively the petitioners). 
Weirton Steel Corporation is not a petitioner in the investigation 
involving (HRS) from the Netherlands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice at 
77569. We received no comments from any parties in this investigation. 
The Department did, however, receive comments regarding product 
coverage in the investigation of hot-rolled carbon steel products from 
the Netherlands. In that investigation we received comments from 
Duracell Global Business Management Group on December 11, 2000, from 
Energizer on December 15, 2000, from Bouffard Metal Goods, Inc., and 
Truelove & Maclean, Inc., on December 18, 2000, and from Corus Staal BV 
and Corus Steel U.S.A., Inc. (collectively referred to as Corus), from 
Thomas Steel Strip Corporation on December 26, 2000, and from Rayovac 
Corporation on March 12, 2001.
    On December 28, 2000, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of the products subject to this investigation 
are threatening or are materially injuring an industry in the United 
States producing the domestic like product. See Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, 
Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 
FR 805 (January 4, 2001).
    On January 4, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to the government of Romania, the mandatory respondent in 
this case. We also sent copies of the questionnaire to Gavazzi Steel 
and Sidex S.A. (Sidex), both of whom had been identified as producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise by the petitioners. On January 30, 
2001, we received a letter from Sidex stating that Gavazzi Steel, a 
producer of the subject merchandise in Romania, did not sell the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
investigation (POI) and that only HRS produced by Sidex was exported to 
the United States during the POI. On February 1 and February 26, 2001, 
we received questionnaire responses from Sidex, Sidex Trading, SRL, 
Sidex International, Plc (jointly, the Sidex Exporters), 
Metalexportimport, S.A. (MEI), Metanef, S.A. (Metanef) and Metagrimex, 
S.A. (Metagrimex). We issued supplemental questionnaires to Sidex and 
the Sidex Exporters, MEI, Metanef and Metagrimex on March 12, 2001, and 
received responses on March 31, 2001. On February 1, 2001, we invited 
interested parties to provide comments on the surrogate country 
selection and publicly available information for valuing the factors of 
production. We received comments from both the petitioners and the 
respondents regarding surrogate country selection on February 6, 2001. 
Between February 6 and April 11, 2001, the petitioners and the 
respondents submitted additional comments regarding issues they 
believed the Department should consider for the purposes of the 
preliminary determination.
    On April 11, 2001, counsel for Sidex and the Sidex Exporters, 
Metanef, MEI and Metagrimex submitted a letter from the Embassy of 
Romania which stated that Gavazzi Steel made no exports of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI.

Period of Investigation

    The POI for HRS from Romania is April 1, 2000 through September 30, 
2000. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters 
prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., November 2000).

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, 
of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated 
with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with 
plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in 
successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in 
straight length, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width 
measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., 
flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 
width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness 
of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) 
of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of 
this investigation.
    Specifically included within the scope are vacuum degassed, fully 
stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF) steels, high 
strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor 
lamination steels. IF

[[Page 22195]]

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:

    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
    <bullet> Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
    <bullet> Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
    <bullet> ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
    <bullet> USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
    <bullet> All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
    <bullet> Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTSUS.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products covered by this investigation, including: vacuum degassed 
fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor 
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.

Nonmarket Economy Status

    The Department has treated Romania as a non-market-economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping investigations. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Small Diameter 
Carbon and Alloy Seamless, Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From 
Romania, 65 FR 39125 (June 23, 2000). A designation as a NME remains in 
effect until it is revoked by the Department (see section 771(18)(C) of 
the Act).
    On January 3, 2001, we received a letter from the Romanian 
Undersecretary of State requesting market economy status. In response, 
the Department issued a letter outlining the proper form and procedures 
for making a request for market economy status. See Letter from Gary 
Taverman to the Government of Romania (January 5, 2001). There has been 
no further communication from the Romanian government on this issue.
    When the Department is investigating imports from a NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on the NME 
producer's factors of production, valued in a comparable market economy 
that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The sources 
of individual factor prices are discussed under the Normal Value 
section, below.

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject 
merchandise subject to investigation in a NME country a single rate 
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent 
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. For purposes of this 
``separate rates'' inquiry, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon 
Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to 
separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence 
of government control over exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact 
(de facto).
    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control includes the following: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is 
based on the following four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are 
set by or subject to the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter 
has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts. (See Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.)
    We have determined, according to the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, that the evidence of record demonstrates 
an absence of

[[Page 22196]]

government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports by 
Metagrimex, Metanef, MEI and the Sidex Exporters. In the case of 
Metagrimex, that company was established as a privately-owned limited-
liability trading company after Romania began its extensive 
privatization program in 1990; the company has never been state-owned 
nor controlled by provincial or local governments. In the case of 
Metanef and MEI, although these companies were previously state-owned, 
they have since become privately-held trading companies in accordance 
with legislative enactments decentralizing the companies' control. 
Moreover, a review of the corporate governance rules of each of these 
three companies indicates that they are only limited by their 
respective articles of incorporation and bylaws. Specifically, the 
information on the record shows that MEI, Metagrimex and Metanef are 
autonomous in selecting their management, negotiating and signing 
contracts, setting their own export prices, and retaining their own 
profits.\2\ In the case of Sidex and the Sidex Exporters, although 
Sidex remains primarily state-owned, the record evidence indicates that 
the government exercises no control over the daily operations of the 
company, and that the company operates independently in the selling of 
the subject merchandise. In the case of Sidex, we note that one of the 
seven directors of the company is a government official. Otherwise, 
Sidex and the Sidex Exporters appear to operate independent of 
government control with respect to the selection of their management, 
negotiating and signing contracts, setting their own export prices and 
retaining their own profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note that an issue has been raised as to whether it is 
appropriate to assign a margin to any Romanian company other than 
Sidex, becasue the evidence on the record may suggest that Sidex has 
a more direct role in U.S. sales of HRS than is typically seen in 
NME cases. This issue will be examined closely at verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a complete discussion of the Department's preliminary 
determination that Metagrimex, Metanef, MEI and the Sidex Exporters are 
entitled to separate rates, see the April 23, 2001, memorandum, 
Assignment of Separate Rates for Respondents in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Romania, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 
of the main Commerce Department Building.

Romania-Wide Rate

    As in all NME cases, the Department implements a policy whereby 
there is a rebuttable presumption that all exporters comprise a single 
entity under common government control, the ``NME entity.'' Therefore, 
the Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity, unless an 
exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. If all 
exporters, accounting for all exports of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POI, demonstrate eligibility for a separate 
rate, the Department will calculate an ``all others'' rate as it does 
in market economy cases. However, if record evidence suggests that all 
exporters have not responded to at least the Department's initial 
shipment information query, the Department will rely on its presumption 
that there is an additional entity under government control and will 
assign a country-wide rate to the NME entity. Such is the situation in 
this investigation. Specifically, we have been unable to confirm 
through a comparison of the reported data to public sources, that no 
other company exported HRS to the United States during the POI.
    In an effort to confirm that all sales of HRS from Romania were 
indeed accounted for in the reported sales volumes for each of the 
respondents in this investigation, we compared the total sales quantity 
for all four respondents to total imports of HRS from Romania as 
reported by the U.S. Customs Service. According to the U.S. Customs 
Service, total imports of HRS from Romania during the POI were 
significantly higher than the total sales quantity reported to the 
Department by the four respondents. See Memorandum to the File from 
Valerie Ellis Regarding IM-145 data for POI Imports from Romania (April 
19, 2001). Given this, we believe that additional exporters of the 
subject merchandise exist that have not responded to the Department's 
questionnaire.
    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, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject 
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of 
the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted 
information if 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). 
Section 776(b) of the Act also provides 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).
    The SAA, at 870, and section 351.308(c)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, clarify that information from the petition is ``secondary 
information.'' If the Department relies on secondary information as 
facts available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall, to the extend practicable, corroborate such information using 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA further 
provides that corroboration means simply that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. However, where corroboration is not practicable, the Department 
may use uncorroborated information.
    On January 4, 2001, we sent an antidumping questionnaire to the 
Government of Romania requesting that they transmit the questionnaire 
to all of the companies in Romania who produce or export the subject 
merchandise to the United States. There is no record evidence as to 
whether or not they did so. Although we received questionnaire 
responses from the exporters named in the petition, as well as from 
additional trading companies not named in the petition, as discussed 
above, Customs data indicate that these exporters do not account for 
all exports of the subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POI. As a result, the Department presumes that there is an additional 
NME entity that has not responded to our questionnaire and 
determination of a country-wide rate is appropriate. Because the 
information necessary to

[[Page 22197]]

calculate a country-wide rate is not available on the record, we have 
determined the country-wide rate based on the facts available, pursuant 
to section 776(a)(1) of the Act. In addition, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, we are using an adverse inference in selecting among 
the facts otherwise available because the NME entity failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability by not responding to the 
Department's questionnaire. As adverse facts available, we have 
assigned a rate of 88.62 percent, the highest rate contained in the 
petition, as the Romania-wide rate.
    To corroborate the petition rate of 88.62 percent, we examined the 
basis of the rate contained 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 and normal value calculations on which the 
petition margin calculation was based. The U.S. price in the petition 
was based on import average unit values. Based on a comparison of the 
U.S. Census Bureau's official IM-145 import statistics with the average 
unit values in the petition, we find the export price suggested in the 
petition to be consistent with those statistics. The normal value was 
based on a factors of production analysis using public information, 
reasonably available to the petitioners, to value the factors. The 
petitioners estimated the factors of production by using a U.S. 
company's experience in manufacturing a like product during the first 
nine months of 2000. Where appropriate, the factors were adjusted for 
known differences using publicly available UN Commodity Trade 
Statistics. We compared the factors used by the petitioners in the 
petition to the factors provided by the respondents and find them to be 
similar. In addition, the information used to value the factors comes 
from public, published sources. For these reasons, we find the petition 
rate used as adverse facts available to be corroborated for the 
purposes of this investigation.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by 
Metagrimex, Metanef, MEI and the Sidex Exporters to the United States 
were made at LTFV, we compared the export price (EP) to the NV, as 
described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice, 
below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs to weighted-average NVs.

Export Price

    We used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act, because the Sidex Exporters, Metagrimex, Metanef and MEI sold the 
merchandise directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States 
prior to importation, and CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated.
1. The Sidex Exporters
    We calculated EP based on packed FOB Galati prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland 
freight from the plant to the port of embarkation and brokerage and 
handling in Romania. Because domestic brokerage and handling and inland 
freight were provided by NME companies, we based those charges on 
surrogate rates from Egypt. (See the Normal Value section for further 
discussion.)
2. Metanef
    We calculated EP based on packed FOB Galati prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland 
freight from the plant to the port of embarkation and brokerage and 
handling in Romania. As with the Sidex Exporters, because domestic 
brokerage and handling and inland freight were provided by NME 
companies, we based those charges on surrogate rates from Egypt. (See 
the Normal Value section for further discussion.)
3. Metagrimex
    We calculated EP based on packed FOB Galati prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland 
freight from the plant to the port of embarkation and brokerage and 
handling in Romania. As with the Sidex Exporters and Metanef, because 
domestic brokerage and handling and inland freight were provided by NME 
companies, we based those charges on surrogate rates from Egypt. (See 
the Normal Value section for further discussion.)
4. MEI
    We calculated EP based on packed FOB Galati prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland 
freight from the plant to the port of embarkation and brokerage and 
handling in Romania. As with the other Romanian companies, because 
domestic brokerage and handling and inland freight were provided by NME 
companies, we based those charges on surrogate rates from Egypt. (See 
the Normal Value section for further discussion.)

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department 
initially determined that the Philippines, the Dominican Republic and 
El Salvador are the countries most comparable to Romania in terms of 
overall economic development. We subsequently included Egypt, Ecuador 
and Algeria among the countries which are economically comparable to 
Romania because Egypt's per-capita GNP and overall economic development 
were also similar to that of Romania. See the January 22 and March 30, 
2001 memoranda from Jeff May, Director, Office of Policy to Gary 
Taverman, Director, Office 5, AD/CVD Enforcement.
    According to the information on the record, we have determined that 
Egypt is a significant producer of products comparable to the subject 
merchandise among the above-referenced potential surrogate countries, 
and provides the necessary factor price information for most of the 
factors of production. Accordingly, where possible, we have calculated 
NV using Egyptian prices to value the Romanian producer's factors of 
production. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available 
information whenever possible. Where we did not have reliable Egyptian 
values, we used values for inputs from the Philippines, which, to a 
lesser degree, produces comparable products to the subject merchandise, 
as well. Where the producer purchased factor inputs from a market-
economy supplier in significant quantities and paid in a convertible 
currency, we used the actual prices paid to value all of the input.
B. Factors of Production
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by Sidex, the company in 
Romania that produced hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, for the 
exporters that sold hot-rolled carbon steel flat products to the United 
States

[[Page 22198]]

during the POI. To calculate NV, the reported unit factor quantities 
were multiplied by publicly available Egyptian and, where necessary, 
Philippine values.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. We added to 
surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the distance from the 
seaport to the factory or the reported distance from the domestic 
supplier to the factory, whichever distance was shorter. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). For those freight values not contemporaneous with the 
POI, we adjusted for inflation using consumer price indices published 
in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics.
    We valued material inputs and packing material by Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) number, using imports statistics from the UN Commodity 
Trade Statistics for 1998. Where a material input was purchased in a 
market-economy currency from a market-economy supplier, we valued all 
of the input at the actual purchase price in accordance with section 
351.408(c)(1) of the Department's regulations. For a complete analysis 
of surrogate values, see the April 23, 2001 memorandum, Factors of 
Production Valuation for Preliminary Determination (Valuation 
Memorandum), on file in the CRU.
    We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value electricity, we used the electricity rates for Egypt 
reported in the January 2000 Middle East and North Africa Region 
Infrastructure Development Unit publication Republic of Yemen 
Comprehensive Development Review (Phase I) Power and Energy Sector 
Report.
    We based our calculation of depreciation, selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit from the financial statements 
of Alexandria National Iron and Steel Works, an Egyptian producer of 
products comparable to the subject merchandise. We were unable to 
calculate an appropriate overhead ratio from any of the information on 
the record.
    To value truck and rail freight rates, we used a 1999 rate, 
adjusted for inflation, provided by the Egyptian Consulting House, a 
member of AGN International. For barge transportation, we valued barge 
rates using an Egyptian rate from an Egyptian freight forwarder for 
steel coil and coal in bulk from Alexandria to Hulwan, Egypt, as 
adjusted for inflation.
    For brokerage and handling, we used a 1999 rate provided by a 
trucking and shipping company located in Alexandria, Egypt. For further 
details, see Valuation Memorandum.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise from Romania 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 weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. 
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Exporter/manufacturer                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidex Trading, SRL & Sidex International, Plc................      22.97
Metanef, S.A.................................................      32.36
Metagrimex, S.A..............................................      33.40
Metalexportimport,S.A........................................      25.60
Romania-Wide.................................................      88.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Romania-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject 
merchandise except for entries from exporters/producers that are 
identified individually above.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant portion of exports 
of the subject merchandise or, if in the event of a negative 
determination, a request for such postponement is made by the 
petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by the respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On April 11, 2000, we received a request from the respondents for 
postponement of the final determination and an extension of the 
provisional measures. Because the preliminary determination in this 
case is affirmative, the requesting respondents account for a 
significant percent of the exports to the United States and there is no 
compelling reason to deny the respondents' request, we have extended 
the deadline for issuance of the final determination in this case until 
the 135th day after the date of publication of this preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register.

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 by 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

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, the Department will disclose to 
the parties the details of its antidumping calculations. Case briefs 
will be due two weeks after the issuance of the final verification 
report in conjunction with this investigation. 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.

[[Page 22199]]

    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 publication of this 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 the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration.

    Dated: April 23, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-10854 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P