22152 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners with respect to the investigation

in Ukraine are: Bethlehem Steel Corporation, LTV

Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation,

U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, the

United Steelworkers of America, Gallatin Steel

Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., Nucor Corp., Steel

Dynamics, Inc., Weirton Steel Corp., and

Independent Steelworkers Union.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–823–811]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Ukraine

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 Ukraine.

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 Ukraine.

This investigation covers four producers

of the subject merchandise. The period

of investigation is April 1, 2000 through

September 30, 2000. The Department

preliminarily determines that certain

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products

from Ukraine are being, or are likely to

be, sold in the United States at less than

fair value, as provided in section 733 of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori

Ellison or Laurel LaCivita of Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5811 and (202)

482–4243, respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

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

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

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

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (‘‘hot-rolled steel’’) from

Ukraine 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

On December 4, 2000, the Department

initiated an antidumping duty

investigation of hot-rolled steel from

Ukraine.1 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). 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 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 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 certain

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products

antidumping investigations, providing

an opportunity to comment on the

Department’s proposed model matching

characteristics and hierarchy.

Comments were submitted by:

Petitioners (January 5, 2001); Corus

Staal BV and Corus Steel USA Inc.,

collectively referred to as Corus,

respondent in the Netherlands

investigation (January 3, 2001); Iscor

Limited, respondent in the South Africa

investigation (January 3, 2001); and

Zaporizhstal, respondent in the Ukraine

investigation (January 3, 2001).

Petitioners agreed with the

Department’s proposed characteristics

and hierarchy of characteristics. Corus

suggested adding a product

characteristic to distinguish prime

merchandise from non-prime

merchandise. Neither Iscor nor

Zaporizhstal proposed any changes to

either the list of product characteristics

proposed by the Department or the

hierarchy of those product

characteristics but, rather, provided

information relating to its own products

that was not relevant in the context of

determining what information to

include in the Department’s

questionnaires.

For purposes of the questionnaires

subsequently issued by the Department

to the respondents, no changes were

made to the product characteristics or

the hierarchy of those characteristics

from those originally proposed by the

Department in its December 22, 2000

letter. With respect to Corus’ request,

the additional product characteristic

suggested by Corus, to distinguish prime

merchandise from non-prime

merchandise, is unnecessary. The

Department already asks respondents to

distinguish prime from non-prime

merchandise in field number 2.2 ‘‘Prime

vs. Secondary Merchandise.’’ See the

Department’s Antidumping Duty

Questionnaire, at C–5 and C–6 (January

4, 2001).

On December 29, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) issued its affirmative

preliminary determination that there is

a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports of the

subject merchandise from Ukraine,

which was published on January 4,

2001. See Hot-Rolled Steel Products

from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia,

Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Romania,

South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Ukraine, 66 FR 805 (January 4, 2001)

(‘‘ITC Preliminary Determination’’).

On January 4, 2001, we issued

questionnaires to the Embassy of

Ukraine and to all of the known

producers of the subject merchandise in

Ukraine: Dnepropetrovsk Comintern

Steel Works (‘‘Dnepropetrovsk’’), Ilyich

Iron & Steel Works, Mariupol (‘‘Ilyich’’),

Krivoi Rog State Mining and

Metallurgical Works (‘‘Krivorozhstal’’)

and Zaporozhstal Iron & Steel Works

(‘‘Zaporizhstal’’).

On January 22, 2001, Krivorozhstal

responded that it does not manufacture

any of the subject merchandise and,

accordingly, could not be one of the

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States.

On January 25, 2001, the Department

requested comments from interested

parties regarding surrogate country

selection, and information to value

factors of production. On February 6,

2001, we received comments concerning

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22153

surrogate country selection from both

the petitioners and Zaporizhstal.

On February 9, 2001, Zaporizhstal

submitted its section A response,

including a request for ‘‘market

economy treatment to Ukraine * * * or,

at a minimum, market-oriented industry

treatment to Zaporizhstal.’’ On February

16, 2001, the government of Ukraine

confirmed its support for these requests.

See Memorandum to the File from Lori

Ellison to Edward Yang, Request for

Revocation of NME Status/MOI

Treatment for Zaporizhstal, dated April

16, 2001. Also on February 16, 2001, the

State Committee of Industrial Policy of

Ukraine entered an appearance as an

interested party to the proceeding. On

February 21, 2001, Ilyich entered an

appearance as a foreign producer and

exporter of the subject merchandise and

an interested party to the proceeding,

but did not respond to the Department’s

questionnaire. Dnepropetrovsk similarly

did not respond to the Department’s

questionnaire.

On February 23, 2001, the Department

issued a section A supplemental

questionnaire to Zaporizhstal. On

February 26, 2001, the Department sent

Zaporizhstal a questionnaire concerning

its request for market-economy

treatment for Ukraine and/or marketoriented industry (‘‘MOI’’) treatment for

Zaporizhstal. On February 27, 2001,

Zaporizhstal submitted section C and D

responses. In addition, it provided

section C responses for Midland

Industries Limited (‘‘Midland

Industries’’), Midland Metals

International, Inc. (‘‘Midland Metals’’),

Midland Resources Holding Limited

(‘‘Midland Resources’’), and Rudolph

Robinson International, Ltd.

(‘‘Robinson’’). (These companies, and

Zaporizhstal, are occasionally referred

to as ‘‘respondents’’ in this notice). Also

on February 27, 2001, Zaporizhstal also

submitted an unsolicited section B

response (home market sales) in light of

its request for market-economy

treatment for Ukraine and/or marketoriented industry treatment for itself.

On March 9, 2001, respondents

submitted a response to the first

supplemental section A questionnaire.

On March 13, 2001, Department officials

met with counsel for respondents

regarding this response and issued a

letter to them in which the Department

explained that a large number of their

answers were unresponsive and grossly

deficient despite explicit instructions in

the original questionnaire and the

supplemental questionnaire of February

23, 2001. See Memorandum to the File

from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson; ExParte Meeting, dated March 19, 2001.

On March 14, 2001, the Department

issued a supplemental section C and D

questionnaire to respondents. On March

19, 2001, Zaporizhstal responded to

certain issues noted in our March 13,

2001 letter regarding affiliation. In

addition, on March 20, 2001, we issued

a second supplemental section A

questionnaire to respondents.

On March 22, 2001, certain

petitioners (Bethlehem Steel

Corporation, LTV Steel Company, Inc.,

National Steel Corporation, and U.S.

Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation)

(hereinafter referred to as Bethlehem et

al.) requested that the Department

conduct a middleman dumping

investigation of Robinson and other

trading companies through whom

Zaporizhstal’s subject merchandise was

sold to the United States.

On March 27, 2001, we issued a

supplemental questionnaire to

respondents concerning their claims of

affiliation. On April 5, 2001,

respondents submitted their second

supplemental section A questionnaire

response and their supplemental section

C and D questionnaire responses. On

April 9, 2001 respondents submitted

responses to the March 27, 2001

affiliation questionnaire. On April 11,

2001 respondents submitted unsolicited

information purporting to respond to

selected questions from the

Department’s supplemental

questionnaires. These responses were

not filed on a timely basis.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

April 1, 2000, through September 30,

2000. This period corresponds to the

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., November 2000). See 19 CFR

351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are certain hot-rolled

carbon steel flat products of a

rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater, neither clad, plated, nor

coated with metal and whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other non-metallic

substances, in coils (whether or not in

successively superimposed layers),

regardless of thickness, and in straight

lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75

mm and of a width measuring at least

10 times the thickness. Universal mill

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

four faces or in a closed box pass, of a

width exceeding 150 mm, but not

exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness

of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and

without patterns in relief) of a thickness

not less than 4.0 mm is not included

within the scope of this investigation.

Specifically included within the

scope of this investigation are vacuum

degassed, fully stabilized (commonly

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

high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels,

and the substrate for motor lamination

steels. IF steels are recognized as low

carbon steels with micro-alloying levels

of elements such as titanium or niobium

(also commonly referred to as

columbium), or both, added to stabilize

carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA

steels are recognized as steels with

micro-alloying levels of elements such

as chromium, copper, niobium,

vanadium, and molybdenum. The

substrate for motor lamination steels

contains micro-alloying levels of

elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the

scope of this investigation, regardless of

definitions in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS),

are products in which: (i) Iron

predominates, by weight, over each of

the other contained elements; (ii) the

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by

weight; and (iii) none of the elements

listed below exceeds the quantity, by

weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or

2.25 percent of silicon, or

1.00 percent of copper, or

0.50 percent of aluminum, or

1.25 percent of chromium, or

0.30 percent of cobalt, or

0.40 percent of lead, or

1.25 percent of nickel, or

0.30 percent of tungsten, or

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

0.10 percent of niobium, or

0.15 percent of vanadium, or

0.15 percent of zirconium.

All products that meet the physical

and chemical description provided

above are within the scope of this

investigation unless otherwise

excluded. The following products, by

way of example, are outside or

specifically excluded from the scope of

this investigation:

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in

which at least one of the chemical

elements exceeds those listed above

(including, e.g., American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

specifications A543, A387, A514, A517,

A506).

• Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute

(AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the

HTSUS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the

HTSUS.

22154 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the

HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with

a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.

• ASTM specifications A710 and

A736.

• USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS

AR 400, USS AR 500).

• All products (proprietary or

otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM

specification (sample specifications:

ASTM A506, A507).

• Non-rectangular shapes, not in

coils, which are the result of having

been processed by cutting or stamping

and which have assumed the character

of articles or products classified outside

chapter 72 of the HTSUS.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the HTSUS

at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,

7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,

7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,

7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,

7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,

7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,

7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,

7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,

7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,

7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,

7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60,

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00,

7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90,

7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00,

7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00,

7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30,

7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90.

Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products covered by this investigation,

including: vacuum degassed fully

stabilized; high strength low alloy; and

the substrate for motor lamination steel

may also enter under the following tariff

numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00,

7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,

7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,

7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,

7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00,

7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,

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.

Middleman Dumping Allegation

On March 22, 2001, Bethlehem et al.

requested that the Department conduct

a middleman dumping investigation of

Robinson and other trading companies

through whom Zaporizhstal’s subject

merchandise was sold to the United

States. They allege that the trading

companies purchased subject

merchandise from Midland Industries,

and resold such merchandise into the

United States at prices less than the

trading companies’ cost of acquisition

and associated expenses. Further,

Bethlehem et al. maintain that the

trading companies’ resale prices do not

permit the recovery of these companies’

total acquisition and associated costs.

Because of the complexity of the issue,

the Department has not yet determined

the proper course of action on the

petitioners’ middleman dumping

allegation. Accordingly, we will address

the middleman dumping issue in the

final determination.

Nonmarket-Economy Country Status

The Department has treated Ukraine

as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)

country in all past antidumping

investigations. See, e.g., Notice of

Preliminary Determinations of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars from Poland,

Indonesia, and Ukraine, 66 FR 8343

(January 30, 2001) and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine (‘‘CTL

Plate from Ukraine’’) 62 FR 61754

(November 19, 1997). This NME

designation remains in effect until it is

revoked by the Department (see section

771(18)(C) of the Act). During this

investigation, Zaporizhstal requested

revocation of Ukraine’s NME status.

Following the official endorsement of

this request by the Ukrainian

government, the Department issued a

letter to Zaporizhstal and the Ukrainian

Embassy requesting, inter alia, that the

company and the Government of

Ukraine submit evidence addressing the

statutory criteria relevant to their NME

status and described in section

771(18)(B) of the Act. In addition, the

Department requested that Zaporizhstal

submit evidence of progress regarding

those factors under section 771(18)(B)

which Ukraine did not satisfy in its

1996 request for revocation. See CTL

Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754.

However, as of the date of this

determination, we have received no

response to this request for information.

Given that no evidence or

argumentation on the record exists

regarding progress since the earlier

determination, for purposes of this

preliminary determination, we have

continued to treat Ukraine as an NME

country.

Market Oriented Industry

As indicated above (see ‘‘Case

History’’), Zaporizhstal, with the

support of the Government of Ukraine,

has requested market-oriented-industry

treatment for Zaporizhstal (that is, that

the hot-rolled steel industry in Ukraine

be treated as a market-oriented

industry). Accordingly, on February 26,

2001, we issued a questionnaire

concerning Zaporizhstal’s marketoriented industry treatment.

Specifically, we requested that

Zaporizhstal and the Government of

Ukraine address the following criteria:

(1) For the merchandise under

investigation, there must be virtually no

government involvement in setting

prices or amounts to be produced; (2)

the industry producing the merchandise

under investigation should be

characterized by private or collective

ownership; and (3) market-determined

prices must be paid for all significant

inputs, whether material or nonmaterial (e.g., labor and overhead), and

for all but an insignificant portion of all

the inputs accounting for the total value

of the merchandise under review. To

date, we have received no response to

this request for information.

Furthermore, we note that in this

investigation, there are three known

producers of subject merchandise:

Ilyich, Dnepropetrovsk, and

Zaporizhstal. Of these three, Ilyich and

Denpropetrovsk have failed to respond

to the Department’s questionnaire. As

the Department stated in Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish Tail

Meat From the People’s Republic of

China, 62 FR 41351 (August 1, 1997),

‘‘consistent with past practice, we

require information on the entire

industry, or virtually the entire

industry, in order to make an affirmative

determination that an industry is market

oriented.’’ As further noted in that

determination, the Department received

questionnaire responses from only a

small portion of the exporters named in

the petition, and data on the record in

that case revealed that several exporters

who did not respond to the

Department’s questionnaire exported

the subject merchandise into the United

States during the POI. Finally, we also

noted in that case that ‘‘although we

received a letter from the China

Chamber on March 6, 1997, this letter

did not adequately respond to the

Department’s original request for

information, and did not provide the

necessary information regarding the

universe of PRC crawfish producers and

exporters.’’

In this case, we likewise are faced

with the fact that known exporters of

Ukrainian subject merchandise have not

responded to the Department’s requests

for information. Furthermore, we have

received no information from the

Government of Ukraine, despite our

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22155

explicit request. Consequently,

consistent with Department practice, for

purposes of this preliminary

determination, we have continued to

treat the hot-rolled steel industry in

Ukraine as not qualified for MOI

treatment.

No Shipper Treatment for

Krivorozhstal

Krivorozhstal reported that it did not

have any sales of hot-rolled carbon steel

flat products to the United States. The

Department confirmed, through a

review of U.S. Customs data, the

absence of shipments from

Krivorozhstal to the U.S. during the POI.

Therefore, in accordance with the

Department’s practice, we did not

investigate Krivorozhstal.

Ukraine-Wide Rate

We sent questionnaires to all four

companies identified as potential

respondents in the petition. We did not

receive responses from Ilyich and

Dnepropetrovsk. As discussed below in

the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section of the

notice, Zaporizhstal has significantly

impeded this investigation. Given that

we did not make a determination of a

separate rate for Zaporizhstal, the

Ukraine-wide rate will be applicable to

it. In addition, U.S. import statistics

indicate that the total quantity and

value of U.S. imports of hot-rolled steel

from Ukraine is greater than the total

quantity and value of hot-rolled steel

reported by Zaporizhstal (see

Memorandum to Edward C. Yang, Facts

Available Corroboration Memorandum,

Preliminary Determination of HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Ukraine, April 23, 2001 (‘‘FA/

Corroboration Memorandum’’)).

Accordingly, we are applying the

Ukraine-wide rate to all exporters in

Ukraine based on our presumption that

those respondents who failed to respond

to our questionnaire constitute a single

enterprise under common control by the

government of Ukraine. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Bicycles from the People’s

Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April

30, 1996) (‘‘Bicycles’’). Therefore, the

Ukraine-wide rate applies to all entries

of the subject merchandise from

Ukraine.

Application of Facts Available

Section 776(a) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested, significantly

impedes a proceeding under the

antidumping statute, or provides

information which cannot be verified,

the Department shall use, subject to

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

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination. The statute

requires that certain conditions be met

before the Department may resort to

facts available. 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

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) of the Act, disregard all

or part of the original and subsequent

responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to

section 782(e) of the Act, the

Department shall not decline to

consider information deemed

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) of the

Act if: (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

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 also ‘‘Statement of

Administrative Action’’ accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 870

(‘‘SAA’’). The statute and SAA provide

that such an adverse inference may be

based on secondary information,

including information drawn from the

petition.

In accordance with sections 776(a)

and (b) of the Act, for the reasons

explained below, we preliminarily

determine that the use of total adverse

facts available is warranted with respect

to respondents Dnepropetrovsk, Ilyich,

and Zaporizhstal.

Ilyich and Dnepropetrovsk

Although Ilyich entered an

appearance as a foreign producer and

exporter of the subject merchandise, it

ultimately did not respond to any of the

Department’s questionnaires. Similarly,

Dnepropetrovsk failed to provide any

response to the Department’s

questionnaires. Given these companies’

failure to respond, section 776(a) directs

the Department to use facts available. In

selecting from among facts available,

section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the

Department to use adverse inference

where the parties fail to cooperate to the

best of their abilities. Failure to respond

to the Department’s questionnaires

demonstrates such lack of cooperation

on the part of Ilyich and

Dnepropretovsk. Therefore, for purposes

of the preliminary determination, we

have used adverse inference in selecting

from among facts otherwise available,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.

Zaporizhstal

Although Zaporizhstal has responded

in part to the Department’s

questionnaires and supplemental

questionnaires over the course of this

proceeding, its response is too deficient

to be used as a basis for calculating a

dumping margin. Specifically, it has not

provided the Department with

complete, documented, factors of

production information. Moreover, the

factors of production data which has

been submitted has not been prepared

in accordance with the Department’s

instructions, and its use would

significantly distort the margin

calculation. In addition, statements

made in the Zaporizhstal’s April 5, 2001

second supplemental section A

response indicate that Zaporizhstal

made sales of subject merchandise to

the United States through an affiliated

party, Midland Resources. However,

Zaporizhstal had not previously

identified this sales channel, and did

not report the U.S. sales of Midland

Resources. Finally, Zaporizhstal did not

timely file its response to a large

number of questions relating to U.S.

sales of Midland Industries’ (a company

with which Zaporizhstal claims to be

affiliated), thereby effectively denying

the Department the ability to analyze

significant sales information for the

purposes of the preliminary

determination. Accordingly, we have

relied on the facts otherwise available

for purposes of this preliminary

determination, pursuant to section

776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. For a

detailed analysis of Zaporizhstal’s

responses and their underlying

deficiencies, see Memorandum to

Edward C. Yang, Facts Available

Corroboration Memorandum,

Preliminary Determination of HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from

Ukraine, April 23, 2001 (‘‘FA/

Corroboration Memorandum’’).

As described in the FA/Corroboration

Memorandum, Zaporizhstal failed to

provide adequate responses to the

Department’s supplemental

questionnaires, despite the

22156 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

Department’s clear instructions and

repeated attempts to obtain the

necessary data, pursuant to section

782(d) of the Act. Moreover, we are

unable, under the application of section

782(e), to use the company’s

information in our preliminary

calculations, since the responses

currently on the record are so

incomplete that they cannot serve as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination. See section 782(e)(3), (4)

and (5) of the Act and the FA/

Corroboration Memorandum.

We also find that the application of

adverse inferences in this case is

appropriate, pursuant to section 776(b)

of the Act. As discussed above, despite

the Department’s clear directions in

both the original and supplemental

questionnaires, Zaporizhstal failed to

provide critical information which was

readily at the company’s disposal.

Specifically, it failed to provide a

description of its calculation

methodology for each of its factors of

production, or worksheets

demonstrating how each factor was

determined, despite the Department’s

explicit requests. Furthermore, the data

that was provided was in a distortive

format that did not permit the

comparison of U.S. sales and factors of

production based on the product

matching characteristics identified in

the Department’s questionnaire, or on

any other reasonable basis.

Zaporizhstal’s most recent response to

the Department’s supplemental

questionnaire reveals that the company

made sales of subject merchandise

through an affiliated party, but had not

previously disclosed either this sales

channel or the U.S. sales of that affiliate.

In addition, the company failed to

answer a significant number of

questions concerning the sales of

Midland Industries, in a timely manner,

thereby depriving the Department of

reasonable use of the information for the

purposes of the preliminary

determination. For these reasons, we

find that the company did not cooperate

to the best of its ability in responding to

the Department’s request for

information, and that, consequently, an

adverse inference is warranted under

section 776(b) of the Act when selecting

facts available. See e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel

Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR

42985 (July 12, 2000).

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

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 margins 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 margins in

the petition were based, as adjusted by

the Department for the purposes of

initiation. 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, for the most part, with the

POI. For purposes of the preliminary

determination, we attempted to further

corroborate the information in the

petition.

For EP we re-examined the

calculations from the petition. Given

that the EP was based on POI-wide

average unit imports values taken from

publicly available information, and no

adjustments to EP were made, no further

corroboration was necessary.

For NV, we re-examined the data

petitioners relied upon in constructing

the NV, as adjusted by the Department.

We reviewed the financial data used in

the petition, which is derived from

publicly-available data (i.e., 1997

financial statements from PT Krakatau

Steel, an Indonesian producer of

comparable merchandise), and therefore

requires no further corroboration. With

regard to the usage factors provided by

petitioners, we find that the petition

information is corroborated based on a

comparison of the usage rates reported

by Zaporizhstal to those that we used in

our initiation of this investigation.

Zaporizhstal is an integrated steel

producer with the typical coking,

sintering and hot-metal production

facilities. The factors of production

information provided in the petition

was based on a similarly integrated steel

producer. We examined these factors

and found that, although the usage

factors information reported by

Zaporizhstal are grossly deficient, and

therefore unusable for the purposes of

calculating a margin, evidence shows

that the usage rates for significant

factors of production in the petition are

nevertheless lower than those reported

by Zaporizhstal. As such, we find that

the data we used in the petition, with

adjustments, was conservative. Thus,

we conclude that the 89.49 percent

margin, the highest rate from the

petition, has probative value.

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s policy to assign

all exporters of merchandise subject to

investigation in a NME country a single

rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate

that it is sufficiently independent from

government control so as to be entitled

to a separate rate. In this case, the single

responding company, Zaporizhstal, has

claimed to be sufficiently independent

to warrant a separate rate. However,

given that Zaporizhstal failed to

cooperate in this investigation to the

best of its ability, we have not made a

determination as to whether

Zaporizhstal merits a separate rate, and

are assigning a single country-wide rate

for all exporters of subject merchandise

from Ukraine for purposes of our

preliminary determination.

Verification

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

Act, we intend to verify all company

information relied upon in making our

final determination, provided that

necessary information is submitted in a

timely manner and in the form

requested by the Department.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of all imports of subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which the NV exceeds the EP, as

indicated below. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22157

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

Steelmakers of America (collectively the

petitioners). However, Weirton Steel Corporation is

not a petitioner in the investigation involving the

Netherlands.

2See Initiation Notice for a complete list of all the

countries being investigated concurrently.

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percent

Ukraine-Wide .............................. 89.49

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination of sales at LTFV. If our

final determination is affirmative, the

ITC will determine before the later of

120 days after the date of this

preliminary determination or 45 days

after our final determination whether

the domestic industry in the United

States is materially injured, or

threatened with material injury, by

reason of imports, or sales (or the

likelihood of sales) for importation, of

the subject merchandise.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

may be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration no

later than fifty days after the date of

publication of this notice, and rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in case

briefs, no later than fifty-five days after

the date of publication of this

preliminary determination. See 19 CFR

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

list of authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

This summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, any hearing will be held

fifty-seven days after publication of this

notice at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at

a time and location to be determined.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

date, time, and location of the hearing

two days before the scheduled date.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the date of publication of this

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests

should contain: (1) The party’s name,

address, and telephone number; (2) the

number of participants; and (3) a list of

the issues to be discussed. At the

hearing, each party may make an

affirmative presentation only on issues

raised in that party’s case brief, and may

make rebuttal presentations only on

arguments included in that party’s

rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 75 days

after the date of the preliminary

determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

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

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10847 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–820]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products From India

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nithya Nagarajan, Timothy Finn, or

John Conniff at (202) 482–5253, (202)

482–0065, and (202) 482–1009,

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 India 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,

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 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); 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 all

interested parties in each of the

concurrent certain hot-rolled carbon

steel flat products antidumping

investigations,2 providing an

opportunity to comment on the

Department’s proposed model matching

characteristics and hierarchy.

Comments were submitted by:

petitioners (January 5, 2001); Corus, a

respondent in the concurrent

Netherlands HRS investigation (January

3, 2001); Iscor Limited, a respondent in