22204 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

benchmark rate for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Further, section 773A(b) of the Act

directs the Department to allow a 60-day

adjustment period when a currency has

undergone a sustained movement. A

sustained movement has occurred when

the weekly average of actual daily rates

exceeds the weekly average of

benchmark rates by more than five

percent for eight consecutive weeks.

(For an explanation of this method, see

Policy Bulletin 96–1: Currency

Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8,

1996).)

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we intend to verify information

to be used in making our final

determination.

All Others

Pursuant to sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii)

and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the

estimated all-others rate is equal to the

estimated weighted average dumping

margin established for SSI, the only

exporter/producer investigated.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, the Department will direct

the U.S. Customs Service to suspend

liquidation of all entries of HR

producers from Thailand, 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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 U.S.

Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the

estimated preliminary dumping margin

indicated in the chart below. This

suspension of liquidation will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins in

the preliminary determination are as

follows:

Exporter/manufacturer Margin

(percent)

SSI .............................................. 7.48

SSM ............................................ 20.30

All Others .................................... 7.48

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination, whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threatening

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the verification

reports. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In

the event that the Department receives

requests for hearings from parties to

several HR cases, the Department may

schedule a single hearing to encompass

all those cases. Parties should confirm

by telephone the time, date, and place

of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time. Interested parties who

wish to request a hearing, or participate

if one is requested, must submit a

written request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination no later than 75

days after the date of this preliminary

determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(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. 01–10855 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–835]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Tran or Robert James at (202)

482–1121 and (202) 482–0649,

respectively, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products from Taiwan 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 Tariff Act. The

estimated margin of sales at LTFV is

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

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 to

the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act) by

the Uruguay Round Agreements

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce (Department)

regulations are to the regulations at 19

CFR part 351 (April 1, 2000).

Case History

On December 4, 2000, the Department

initiated antidumping investigations of

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. 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22205

2000) (Initiation Notice). 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. However, we did receive

comment in the hot-rolled investigation

regarding the Netherlands as follows:

from Duracell Global Business

Management Group on December 11,

2000; from Energizer on December 15,

2000; from Bouffard Metal Goods Inc.

and Truelove & MacLean, Inc. on

December 18, 2000; from the Corus

Group plc., which includes Corus Steel

USA (CSUSA) and Corus Staal BV

(Corus Staal), and Thomas Steel Strip on

December 26, 2000; and from Rayovac

Corporation on March 12, 2001.

On December 22, 2000, the

Department issued a letter to interested

parties in all of the concurrent HR

products antidumping investigations,

providing an opportunity to comment

on the Department’s proposed model

matching characteristics and hierarchy.

Comments were submitted by:

petitioners (January 5, 2001); Corus

Staal BV and Corus Steel USA Inc.,

(Corus), respondent in the Netherlands

investigation (January 3, 2001); Iscor

Limited (Iscor), 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 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. These

fields are used in the model match

program to prevent matches of prime

merchandise to non-prime merchandise.

On December 28, 2000, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) notified the Department of its

affirmative preliminary injury

determination on imports of subject

merchandise from Taiwan. On January

4, 2001, the ITC published its

preliminary determination that there is

a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports of the

subject merchandise from Taiwan (66

FR 805).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued its antidumping duty

questionnaire to China Steel

Corporation (China Steel), Yieh Loong

Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Loong), and

An Feng Steel Co., Ltd. (An Feng). On

February 2, 2001, the Department

received from China Steel and Yieh

Loong the response to Section A of the

questionnaire. (An Feng never

responded to any of the Department’s

questionnaires. See the section ‘‘Facts

Available’’ (below).) On February 15,

2001 and February 21, 2001, the

petitioners filed comments on the

Section A responses of both China Steel

and Yieh Loong. On February 27, 2001

the Department issued a supplemental

questionnaire for China Steel’s and Yieh

Loong’s Section A responses. The two

companies submitted their responses on

March 20, 2001. China Steel made

additional submissions in follow-up to

its March 20, 2001 response on March

21 and March 26, 2001.

China Steel and Yieh Loong filed their

Section B, C, and D responses on

February 26, 2001. On March 6, 2001

petitioners submitted comments on the

Section B, C, and D responses of China

Steel and Yieh Loong. The Department

issued a supplemental questionnaire to

China Steel and Yieh Loong regarding

their Section B and C responses on

March 15, 2001. On April 3, 2001, China

Steel and Yieh Loong filed their

supplemental Section B and C

responses. On March 16, 2001,

petitioners submitted additional

comments regarding China Steel’s

Section D response. On March 21, 2001,

petitioners filed additional comments

regarding Yieh Loong’s Section D

response. The Department issued

supplemental questionnaires concerning

Yieh Loong’s Section D response on

March 21, 2001, and concerning China

Steel’s Section D response on March 23,

2001. The Department received the

responses to these supplemental

questionnaires on April 9, 2001.

On April 17, 2001 and April 18, 2001,

the Department issued another

supplementary questionnaire to China

Steel and Yieh Loong regarding their

Section B, C and D responses. We have

set a due date of April 23, 2001 for the

responses.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1999 through September 30,

2000.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of these investigations,

the products covered are certain hotrolled 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 these investigations.

Specifically included within the

scope of these investigations are

vacuum degassed, fully stabilized

(commonly referred to as interstitial-free

(IF)) steels, high strength low alloy

(HSLA) steels, and the substrate for

motor lamination steels. IF steels are

recognized as low carbon steels with

micro-alloying levels of elements such

as titanium or niobium (also commonly

referred to as columbium), or both,

added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen

elements. HSLA steels are recognized as

steels with micro-alloying levels of

elements such as chromium, copper,

niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

The substrate for motor lamination

steels contains micro-alloying levels of

elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the

scope of these investigations, regardless

of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (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

22206 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

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 these

investigations unless otherwise

excluded. The following products, by

way of example, are outside or

specifically excluded from the scope of

these investigations:

• 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 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 these

investigations, 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.

Affiliations

In the dumping petition the

petitioners identified An Feng, China

Steel, and Yieh Loong as the principal

Taiwanese producers of subject

merchandise. We issued questionnaires

to these three companies on January 4,

2001. (See the ‘‘Case History’’ section

(above).) Upon analysis of the responses

of China Steel and Yieh Loong, we have

determined that these two companies

are affiliated under Section 771(33)(E) of

the Tariff Act. The Department has

collapsed China Steel and Yieh Loong

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘China Steel’’)

pursuant to Section 351.401(f) of the

Department’s regulations for purposes of

calculating a weighted-average margin.

For details of the Department’s analysis,

see the Affiliation Memorandum, April

19, 2001, a copy of which is in room B–

099 at the main Department of

Commerce building. Therefore, the rate

that we have assigned to China Steel

(Yieh Loong’s parent company) in this

preliminary determination will be

applicable to both China Steel and Yieh

Loong.

Facts Available

An Feng

As noted above under ‘‘Case History,’’

An Feng failed to respond to the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the

Tariff Act provides that ‘‘if an interested

party or any other person (A) withholds

information that has been requested by

the administering authority or the

Commission under this title, (B) fails to

provide such information by the

deadlines for submission of the

information or in the from and manner

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)

and (e) of Section 782, (C) significantly

impedes a proceeding under this title, or

(D) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified as

provided in Section 782(i), the

administering authority and the

Commission shall, subject to subsection

782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.’’ Because

An Feng failed to respond to our request

for information, pursuant to Section

776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act we resorted to

the facts otherwise available to calculate

the dumping margin for this company.

Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act

provides that the Department may use

an inference that is adverse to the

interests of a party that has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with the Department’s

requests for necessary information. See

also Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No.

103–316 (1994) (SAA) at 870. Failure by

An Feng to respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire constitutes a

failure to act to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information

within the meaning of Section 776(b) of

the Tariff Act. Because An Feng failed

to respond and offered no explanation

for its failure, the Department has

determined that, in selecting among the

facts otherwise available, an adverse

inference is warranted in selecting the

facts available for this company.

Because we are unable to calculate a

margin for An Feng, consistent with our

practice, we have assigned An Feng the

highest margin alleged based on our

recalculation of the petition margins.

See Notice of Preliminary Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and Certain

Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy

Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure

Pipe from Japan and the Republic of

South Africa, 64 FR 69718, 69722

(December 14, 1999), and Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Wire Rod from Germany, 63 FR 10847,

10848 (March 5, 1998)) and Notice of

Preliminary Determinations of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Angle from Japan, Korea, and Spain, 66

FR 2880, 2883 (January 12, 2001). Based

on amendments to the petition and the

Department’s recalculations, where

applicable, the highest margin is 29.14

percent. See Initiation Notice at 77576.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22207

Section 776(b) of the Tariff 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 Tariff Act provides

that, when the Department relies on

secondary information (such as the

petition) as 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, U.S. Customs Service

data, and information obtained from

interested parties during the particular

proceeding. Id. 

To corroborate the margin

calculations in the petition, we

examined the data relied upon in

making those calculations. The export

prices (EP) in the petition were based on

import values compiled by the U.S.

Customs Service. These data, as

recalculated by the Department using

POI-wide and nation-wide averages for

initiation purposes, are from publicly

available sources (i.e., official U.S.

government statistics). Therefore, we

find that the U.S. price from the petition

margin is sufficiently corroborated.

For the normal value (NV)

calculation, petitioners relied upon

constructed value (CV), consisting of

cost of manufacture (COM), selling,

general, administrative expenses

(SG&A), interest, packing, and profit.

Petitioners based depreciation, interest,

SG&A, packing, and profit on publicly

available financial statements of Taiwan

steel producers. Therefore, because

these data are based on publicly

available financial statements, we find

them to be sufficiently corroborated.

Petitioners based COM (net of

depreciation) on their own cost

experience of producing merchandise

identical to that subject to this

investigation. To corroborate these data,

we compared it to the reported COM of

China Steel and its affiliate Yieh Loong.

Although we have found that these

companies control numbers

(CONNUMs) were mostly unusable, we

were still able to make a reliable

comparison with the petitioner’s COM

data for corroboration purposes. We

performed this comparison by first

calculating the average COM for all of

the CONNUMs China Steel and Yieh

Loong reported in their CV databases

provided with their April 9, 2001

submissions, and comparing that

average to the COM petitioners provided

in their submission of November 22,

2000, exhibit I–14. Our analysis showed

that the petitioners’ reported costs were

reasonably close to the data submitted

by China Steel and Yieh Loong. Based

on this analysis, we find that the COM

data used in the antidumping petition

have probative value. See Corroboration

Memorandum, April 23, 2001.

China Steel

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued China Steel its antidumping duty

questionnaire. The questionnaire

explicitly instructed to China Steel to

report all sales by affiliates to the first

unaffiliated customer. However, if sales

to all affiliated customers constituted

less than five percent of its total sales in

the home market these companies were

to notify the Department. On January 19,

2001, China Steel requested to exclude

themselves from reporting home market

resales by affiliates. China Steel stated

that its sales to its affiliates, China Steel

Global Trading Corporation (China Steel

Global) and China Steel Chemical

Corporation (China Steel Chemical),

constituted less than five percent of its

total sales in the home market. On

January 29, 2001, the Department

replied to China Steel’s January 19, 2001

letter and stated that we could not make

a determination based on the

information provided. The Department

requested that China Steel document

whether the total quantity of subject

merchandise sold to all affiliated parties

(regardless of whether subject

merchandise was further processed by

affiliates) constituted less than five

percent of total home market sales.

China Steel failed to provide such

information.

On February 26, 2001, China Steel

submitted its response to Sections B, C,

and D of the questionnaire. In this

submission, China Steel only reported

affiliated party sales for the companies

it considered to be affiliated entities,

and China Steel did not provide resales

by these affiliates. China Steel coded

sales to Yieh Loong, Yieh Hsing

Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Hsing) and

Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh

Phui) as sales to non-affiliated

companies. Because the Department

collapsed China Steel and Yieh Loong,

any reseller affiliated with either China

Steel or Yieh Loong is recognized as

affiliated with the collapsed entity

(China Steel/ Yieh Loong). See

Affiliation Memorandum, April 19,

2001. Therefore, because of Yieh Phui’s

and Yieh Hsing’s affiliation to Yieh

Loong, they are affiliated with the

collapsed entity, and total affiliated

party sales are greater than five percent

of total home market sales. See

Affiliated Reseller Memorandum, April

19, 2001.

On March 15, 2001, the Department

issued its supplemental Sections B and

C questionnaire, reiterating that China

Steel must report all resales by affiliated

parties (Yieh Loong, China Steel

Chemical, China Steel Global, Yieh

Phui, and Yieh Hsing) to the first

unaffiliated party.

China Steel’s April 3, 2001

supplemental response provided

incomplete and deficient information

regarding affiliated parties’ resales.

Although China Steel provided

complete sales information for China

Steel Global and China Steel Chemical,

it provided minimal sales information

for Yieh Phui and Yieh Hsing, and

inconsistent information regarding Yieh

Loong. Sales to China Steel’s affiliates

constitute a significant quantity of

China Steel’s home market sales, and it

is necessary to have this information in

order for the Department to calculate a

margin. See Adverse Facts Available

Memorandum, April 23, 2001.

Pursuant to Section 782(c) of the Act,

China Steel, after receiving a request

from the Department, must promptly

notify the Department if it is unable to

submit the information requested,

together with a full explanation and

suggest alternative forms in which it is

able to submit the requested information

to the Department. The Department has

repeatedly requested China Steel to

provide complete information with

respect to its downstream sales as

originally instructed in the January 4,

2001 antidumping questionnaire. The

Department has granted a number of

extensions to China Steel and Yieh

Loong to permit them to provide

complete and accurate questionnaire

responses. China Steel stated in its April

3, 2001 narrative that it does not control

Yieh Hsing and Yieh Phui; therefore, it

could not provide complete and

adequate information. China Steel has

never suggested any alternative

reporting methodology. However, the

Department finds that China Steel and

Yieh Loong’s ability to compel their

affiliates to turn over some of the

business proprietary information

requested by the Department is a clear

indication of their ability to exercise

control over these parties.

Pursuant to Section 776(A)(B) of the

Act, we find that China Steel failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability

because it repeatedly refused or ignored

the Department’s instructions to submit

accurate downstream sales data, did not

supply missing sales data, as

demonstrated by its selective

22208 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

submission of China Steel’s affiliates’

data, and never provided alternatives or

reasonable explanations for why it

could not report all downstream sales.

Further, without this data, the

information regarding home market

sales is unusable. A significant quantity

of China Steel’s home market sales are

made through affiliates. Without this

information the Department cannot

calculate an accurate dumping margin.

In addition, the Department found

other deficiencies that made China

Steel’s submission unusable for

purposes of calculating a dumping

margin. The principal deficiency was

the failure to report certain product

characteristics, e.g., quality, carbon

content, yield strength, thickness, and

width for a significant share of China

Steel’s sales to affiliated and unaffiliated

customers. The Department requires the

physical characteristics of paint, quality,

carbon, yield strength, thickness, width,

cut-to-length versus coiled, tempered

rolled, pickled, edge trim, and patterns

in order to match the product to its

appropriate match in the United States,

to ascertain whether the home market

merchandise was sold at prices above

the cost of production, and to calculate

a difference-in-merchandise adjustment.

Therefore, without complete physical

characteristics for all sales, we cannot

calculate an accurate margin.

Moreover, we find that China Steel’s

claim that it is unable to provide proper

physical characteristics in the manner

requested by the Department to be

inconsistent with other information on

the record of this case. For example,

China Steel stated in its April 3, 2001

submission that physical characteristics

(e.g., carbon, yield strength) can be

identified from production records and

inventory records as well as its product

code system. In addition, China Steel

states that it is still able to calculate cost

for some merchandise for which it did

not report complete physical

characteristics. It is unclear from the

record why China Steel cannot provide

physical characteristics for certain sales,

yet still associates costs to those same

sales. Moreover, China Steel never

provided any supporting documentation

in regards to the sales at issue, despite

the Department’s request in a

supplemental questionnaire that it do

so. Without this documentation the

Department is unable to determine the

accuracy of China Steel’s responses

regarding this merchandise. See

Adverse Facts Available Memorandum,

April 23, 2001.

Therefore, because of these

deficiencies, on April 17 and April 18,

2001, we issued to these companies a

supplemental questionnaire, the

response for which is due April 23,

2001. We will analyze the responses to

this supplemental questionnaire and

issue our analysis, if appropriate,

concurrent with the final determination

of this investigation.

In light of China Steel’s repeated

failure to provide affiliated sales

information and its repeated failure to

provide all necessary product

characteristics or to provide any

meaningful explanation of why such

data could not be provided, we

preliminarily determine that China Steel

did not cooperate to the best of its

ability. Accordingly, for the purpose of

this preliminary determination we have

assigned, as adverse facts available, the

highest margin from the antidumping

petition as recalculated by the

Department. See the December 4, 2000,

Import Administration AD Investigation

Initiation Checklist at 25, a copy of

which is contained in the public file in

room B–099 of the main Department of

Commerce building. We consider the

data from the petition to be corroborated

for the reasons given above in

discussing the use of the petition as the

basis for adverse facts available for An

Feng.

All Others

The estimated all-others rate is equal

to the average of the dumping margins

calculated in the antidumping duty

petition as recalculated by the

Department. See the December 4, 2000,

Import Administration AD Investigation

Initiation Checklist.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with Section 733(d) of

the Tariff Act, the Department will

direct the Customs Service to suspend

liquidation of all entries of subject

merchandise from Taiwan that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond equal to the estimated preliminary

dumping margin indicated in the chart

below. This suspension of liquidation

will remain in effect until further notice.

The margins in the preliminary

determination are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer Margin

(percent)

China Steel Corporation (including

Yieh Loong) ............................... 29.14

An Feng Steel Co., Ltd. ................ 29.14

All Others ...................................... 20.28

ITC Notification

In accordance with Section 733(f) of

the Tariff Act, we have notified the ITC

of our determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination, or 45 days after our final

determination, whether these imports

are causing, or threatening, material

injury to the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than one week

after the issuance of the verification

reports. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes. 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 Tariff Act provides

that the Department will hold a hearing

to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs,

provided that such a hearing is

requested by any interested party. If a

request for a hearing is made in an

investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

In the event that the Department

receives requests for hearings from

parties to several hot-rolled carbon steel

flat products cases, the Department may

schedule a single hearing to encompass

all those cases. Parties should confirm

by telephone the time, date, and place

of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time. Interested parties who

wish to request a hearing, or participate

if one is requested, must submit a

written request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination no later than 75

days after the date of publication of this

preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with section

733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

Since January 20, 2001, Bernard T.

Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22209

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10856 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–307–820, A–533–823, and A–834–807]

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Silicomanganese

From Kazakhstan, India and Venezuela

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty

investigations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sally Gannon (India), Robert James

(Venezuela), and Jean Kemp

(Kazakhstan) at (202) 482–0162, (202)

482–0649, and (202) 482–4037,

respectively; Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

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’s regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

The Petition

On April 6, 2001, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by the

following parties: Eramet Marietta Inc.

(Eramet) and the Paper, AlliedIndustrial, Chemical and Energy

Workers International Union, Local 5–

0639 (collectively, the petitioners). The

Department received from the

petitioners information supplementing

the petition throughout the 20-day

initiation period.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of silicomanganese from

Kazakhstan, India, and Venezuela are

being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value

within the meaning of section 731 of the

Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioners filed this petition on behalf

of the domestic industry because they

are interested parties as defined in

sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the

Act and have demonstrated sufficient

industry support with respect to each of

the antidumping investigations that they

are requesting the Department to initiate

(see the Determination of Industry

Support for the Petitions section below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

the products covered are all forms, sizes

and compositions of silicomanganese,

including silicomanganese briquettes,

fines and slag. Silicomanganese is a

ferroalloy composed principally of

manganese, silicon and iron, and

normally contains much smaller

proportions of minor elements, such as

carbon, phosphorous and sulfur.

Silicomanganese is sometimes referred

to as ferrosilicon manganese.

Silicomanganese is used primarily in

steel production as a source of both

silicon and manganese.

Silicomanganese generally contains by

weight not less than 4 percent iron,

more than 30 percent manganese, more

than 8 percent silicon and not more

than 3 percent phosphorous.

Silicomanganese is properly classifiable

under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Some

silicomanganese may also be classified

under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.

This petition covers all

silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff

classification. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope remains dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed the scope with the petitioners

to ensure that it accurately reflects the

product for which the domestic industry

is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed

in the preamble to the Department’s

regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting

aside a period for parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments by May 17,

2001. Comments should be addressed to

Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. The period of

scope consultations is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who produce the

domestic like product. The International

Trade Commission (ITC), which is

responsible for determining whether

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been

injured, must also determine what

constitutes a domestic like product in

order to define the industry. While both

the Department and the ITC must apply

the same statutory definition regarding

the domestic like product (section

771(10) of the Act), they do so for

different purposes and pursuant to

separate and distinct authority. In

addition, the Department’s

determination is subject to limitations of

time and information. Although this

may result in different definitions of the

like product, such differences do not

render the decision of either agency

contrary to the law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the

reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

Moreover, the petitioners do not offer a

definition of domestic like product

distinct from the scope of the

investigation.

In this case, ‘‘the article subject to

investigation’’ also is substantially

similar to the scope of the Department’s

antidumping duty order involving

silicomanganese published in 1994. See

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:

Silicomanganese From the People’s

Republic of China (PRC), 59 FR 66003

(December 22, 1994). Thus, based on

our analysis of the information