[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22180-22183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-814]


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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Handley or Charles Riggle at 
(202) 482-0631 and (202) 482-0650, respectively; AD/CVD, Enforcement, 
Office 5, Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain hot-rolled carbon steel 
flat products (HRS) from Argentina are being, or are likely to be sold, 
in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in 
section 733 of

[[Page 22181]]

the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the 
Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    On November 13, 2000, the Department received a petition on hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products from Argentina filed in proper form 
by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Gallatin Steel Company, IPSCO Steel 
Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor 
Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group (a unit of USX 
Corporation), Weirton Steel Corporation, and Independent Steelworkers 
Union. On November 16, 2000, the United Steel Workers of America joined 
as co-petitioners in this case.
    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, 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 concurrent investigation of HRS 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, from Corus Staal BV and Corus 
Steel U.S.A., Inc. (collectively referred to as Corus), from Thomas 
Steel Strip Corporation on December 27, 2000, and from Rayovac 
Corporation on March 12, 2001.
    On December 22, 2000, the Department issued a letter to interested 
parties in all of the concurrent HRS antidumping investigations, 
providing an opportunity to comment on the Department's proposed model 
matching characteristics and hierarchy. Comments were submitted by: The 
petitioners (January 5, 2001); Corus, respondent in the Netherlands 
investigation (January 3, 2001); Iscor Limited, respondent in the South 
Africa investigation (January 3, 2001); and Zaporizhstal, respondent in 
the Ukraine investigation (January 3, 2001). Petitioners agreed with 
the Department's proposed characteristics and hierarchy of 
characteristics. Corus suggested adding a product characteristic to 
distinguish prime merchandise from non-prime merchandise. Neither Iscor 
nor Zaporizhstal proposed any changes to the either the list of product 
characteristics proposed by the Department or the hierarchy of those 
product characteristics but, rather, provided information relating to 
its own products that was not relevant in the context of determining 
what information to include in the Department's questionnaires. For 
purposes of the questionnaires subsequently issued by the Department to 
the respondents, no changes were made to the product characteristics or 
the hierarchy of those characteristics from those originally proposed 
by the Department in its December 22, 2000 letter. With respect to 
Corus' request, the additional product characteristic suggested by 
Corus, to distinguish prime merchandise from non-prime merchandise, is 
unnecessary. The Department already asks respondents to distinguish 
prime from non-prime merchandise in field number 2.2 ``Prime vs. 
Secondary Merchandise.'' See the Department's Antidumping Duty 
Questionnaire, at B-7 and C-7 (January 4, 2001). These fields are used 
in the model match program to prevent matches of prime merchandise to 
non-prime merchandise. After careful review of the comments received, 
we made no changes to the model matching characteristics and hierarchy 
proposed in the Department's letter.
    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 materially injuring an industry in the United States 
producing the domestic like product. See Hot-Rolled Steel Products from 
Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the 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 Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros SA (Acindar) and 
Siderar Saic (Siderar), the mandatory respondents in this case. On 
January 16, 2001, Siderar notified the Department that it would not be 
responding to the Department's questionnaire due to the burdens 
involved in submitting a response. It provided no further elaboration, 
nor did it suggest alternatives to the Department's requirements 
pursuant to section 782 (c) of the Act. On January 17, 2001, the 
Government of Argentina also notified the Department that Siderar would 
not be participating in the investigation. On January 17, 2001, Acindar 
informed the Department that it did not sell the subject merchandise to 
the United States during the period of investigation (POI) and, 
therefore, had no sales to report. Upon reviewing U.S. Customs data, 
the Department confirmed that Acindar did not sell the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI and as such any future 
exports from Acindar will be subject to the ``all-others'' rate.

Period of Investigation

    The POI for this investigation is October 1, 1999 through September 
30, 2000. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., 
November 2000).

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain HRS 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 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

[[Page 22182]]

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).
    <bullet> 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 
classification numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 
7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 
7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 
7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject 
merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 
7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.

Facts Available

1. Application of Facts Available
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to 
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner 
requested, (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). 
Finally, section 776(b) of the Act states that an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition. See also 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. 
Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
    In accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, for the reasons 
explained below, because Siderar failed to respond to our 
questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that the use of total adverse 
facts available is warranted with respect to Siderar. See the April 23, 
2001 memorandum Application of Facts Available for Siderar Saic on file 
in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce Department 
Building.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an 
inference 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 information. See also Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 
870 (1994) (SAA). Failure by Siderar 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 of the Act. Because Siderar failed to act to the 
best of its ability, 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. Consistent with 
Department practice, we assigned Siderar the highest margin alleged in 
the amendment to the petition, i.e., 44.59 percent. See Initiation 
Notice.
2. Selection and Corroboration of Facts Available
    Section 776(b) of the Act states that an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition. See also SAA 
at 829-831. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the 
Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) in 
using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal.

[[Page 22183]]

    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).
    We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the 
petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the 
extent appropriate information was available for this purpose. See 
Import Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist, dated 
December 4, 2000, for a discussion of the margin calculation in the 
petition. In addition, in order to determine the probative value of the 
margin in the petition for use as adverse facts available for purposes 
of this determination, we examined evidence supporting the calculation 
in the petition. In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the export price 
(EP) and normal value (NV) calculations on which the margin in the 
petition was based. Our review of the EP and NV calculation indicated 
that the information in the petition has probative value, as certain 
information (e.g., international freight and customs duties) included 
in the margin calculation in the petition is from public sources 
concurrent, for the most part, with the POI.
    We compared the export prices contained in the petition with U.S. 
Census values for the same HTS category and found the export prices 
suggested in the petition to be reasonable and, therefore, corroborated 
for purposes of calculating a facts available margin. With respect to 
the NV data included in the margin calculations of the petition, we 
were able to corroborate the reasonableness of these data through the 
use of multiple sources. See the April 23 memorandum titled Application 
of Facts Available for Siderar Saic.

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated 
weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and 
producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or 
are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department 
may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated ``all-others'' 
rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our 
recent practice under these circumstances has been to assign, as the 
``all-others'' rate, the simple average of the margins in the petition. 
We have done so in this case.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing 
Customs to suspend liquidation of all entries of HRS from Argentina 
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
We will instruct Customs to require a cash deposit or the posting of a 
bond equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated 
in the chart below. We will adjust the deposit requirements to account 
for any export subsidies found in the companion countervailing duty 
investigation. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain 
in effect until further notice. The dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siderar Saic (Siderar).....................................        44.59
All Others.................................................        40.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final antidumping determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine whether these imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. 
The deadline for that ITC determination would be the later of 120 days 
after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the 
date of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs must be submitted no later than 35 days after the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Rebuttal briefs 
must be filed within five business days after the deadline for 
submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of 
contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any 
briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Public versions of 
all comments and rebuttals should be provided to the Department and 
made available on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to more than one HRS case, 
the Department may schedule a single hearing to encompass all cases. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination in this investigation no later than 75 days after the 
date of this preliminary determination.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is 
fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration.

    Dated: April 23, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-10852 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P