Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22199

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

As noted above, the final

determination will be issued within 135

days after the date of publication of this

preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and

published pursuant to sections 733(f)

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

January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is

fulfilling the duties of the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10854 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–549–817]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angelica Mendoza or Nancy Decker at

(202) 482–3019 and (202) 482–0196,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 8, Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce (Department)

regulations are to the regulations at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat

products (HR) from Thailand 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 is shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

On December 4, 2000, the Department

initiated antidumping investigations of

HR products from Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation:

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).

The petitioners in this investigation are

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, LTV Steel

Company, Inc., National Steel

Corporation, U.S. Steel Group (a Unit of

USX Corporation), Gallatin Steel

Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., Nucor

Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc.,

Weirton Steel Corporation, and

Independent Steelworkers Union. 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,

nowever, receive comments regarding

product coverage in the investigation of

hot-rolled carbon steel products from

the Netherlands. In that investigation

we received comments from Duracell

Global Business Management Group on

December 11, 2000, from Eveready

Battery Co., Inc., 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., and Thomas

Steel Strip Corporation on December 27,

2000.

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 BA 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 Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine. 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 Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine. See Hot-Rolled

Steel Products from Argentina, India,

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands,

the People’s Republic of China,

Romania, South Africa, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Ukraine, 66 FR 805–02

(January 4, 2001).

On January 4, 2001, the Department

issued all sections of its antidumping

duty questionnaire to Sahaviriya Steel

Industries Public Co., Ltd. (SSI), Siam

22200 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

Strip Mill Public Co., Ltd. (SSM), and

Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co., Ltd.

(Nakornthai). Prior to issuing the

antidumping duty questionnaire, the

Department received a letter, dated

December 25, 2000, from Nakornthai

indicating that its mill was not in

operation and that it made no sales of

subject merchandise during the period

of investigation (POI). On January 16,

2001, the Department received

Nakornthai’s response to Section A of

the questionnaire which further stated

that it was not in operation during the

POI and, therefore, should not be

subject to this investigation. On January

18, 2001, Nakornthai submitted

additional evidence regarding its nonproduction of merchandise subject to

this investigation. On January 24, 2001,

the Department issued a letter

indicating that based on Nakornthai’s

response to Section A of the

questionnaire that it was not currently

required to respond to Sections B, C,

and D. The Department did not receive

a response to any section of the

questionnaire from SSM. On January 25,

2001, the Department received SSI’s

response to Section A of the

questionnaire. On February 16, 2001,

petitioners filed comments on SSI’s

section A response. On March 1, 2001,

the Department issued a supplemental

questionnaire for SSI’s Section A

response. SSI responded on March 16,

2001.

SSI filed its responses to Sections B,

C, and D of the questionnaire on

February 26, 2001. On March 5, 2001,

petitioners submitted comments on

SSI’s Sections B, C, and D responses.

The Department issued a supplemental

questionnaire for responses to Sections

B and C on March 12, 2001. The Section

D supplemental questionnaire was

issued on March 12, 2001. The

Department received responses to the

Sections B–D supplemental

questionnaires on March 26, 2001 and

March 28, 2001.

Period of Investigation

The POI 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), and is in accordance with our

regulations. See section 351.204(b)(1).

We based our analysis on sales

transactions made within the POI by

date of sale. For the home market we

treated the date of the final commercial

invoice as the date of sale. For the U.S.

market we treated the date of the final

contract as the date of sale.

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 (HTS), 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: level exceeding 2.25

percent.

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in

which at least one of the chemical

elements exceeds those listed above

(including, e.g., ASTM specifications

A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).

• Society of Automotive Engineers

(SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute

(AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.

• Ball bearings steels, as defined in

the HTS.

• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the

HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a

silicon

• 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 HTS.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the HTS 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 flat-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, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22201

7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Date of Sale

SSI states that in the home market,

customers submitted purchase orders

and SSI issued order confirmations, but

that it was not uncommon for both

quantity and value to change between

the order confirmations and the

issuance of the commercial invoice

(which occurred at the time of shipment

for home market sales). Based upon the

above information, we have

preliminarily determined that the

invoice date is the appropriate date of

sale for home market sales.

For U.S. sales, SSI has indicated that

the appropriate date of sale is the date

of the final commercial invoice, which

is essentially the bill of lading date.

However, due to an accounting error,

SSI did not record the final commercial

invoice dates as the bill of lading dates

in its accounting system during the POI;

instead, the final commercial invoice

dates were recorded as the same date as

the pre-shipment invoices. Thus, SSI

has requested that the Department use

the bill of lading date, which is the date

of shipment, as a surrogate for the

invoice date because this date most

closely corresponds to the date of

issuance of the final commercial

invoice. As to whether the invoice date

or the contract date better represents the

date of sale, SSI has indicated that the

quantity and price terms frequently

change after the contract date, whereas

the terms of sale do not change after the

invoice date. SSI therefore concludes

that the terms of sale are established on

the date of the final commercial invoice.

We have examined whether the final

commercial invoice date or some other

date better represents the date on which

the material terms of sale were

established. The Department has

examined the information submitted by

SSI concerning the company’s initial

contracts, final contracts, pre-shipment

invoices, and final commercial invoices

for its U.S. sales, and has found that the

material terms of sale are set at the final

contract date. Specifically, we find that

the changes in quantity and price

referred to by SSI occur after the initial

contract date, but not after the final

contract date. We note, however, that in

some instances there were changes in

quantity after the final contract date. We

find these changes to be minimal and to

have affected a relatively insignificant

volume of subject merchandise shipped

to the United States. Moreover, unit

prices for the products did not change

between the final contract date and

invoice date. For business proprietary

details of our analysis of the date of sale

issue, see Memo to the File regarding

Antidumping Duty Investigation on

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Thailand; Preliminary

Determination Analysis for Sahaviriya

Steel Industries, Inc. (April 23, 2001)

(Analysis Memo). Moreover, we find no

basis to use a surrogate date of sale,

such as shipment date (bill of lading

date), where another date establishes the

terms of sale. Accordingly, for U.S.

sales, we have preliminarily determined

that the final contract date is the

appropriate date of sale in this

investigation because it better represents

the date upon which the material terms

of sale were established.

Product Comparisons

Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act,

all products produced by the

respondent that are within the scope of

the investigation, above, and were sold

in the comparison market during the

POI, are considered to be foreign like

products. We have relied on eleven

criteria, in descending order of

importance, to match U.S. sales of

subject merchandise to comparisonmarket sales of the foreign like product:

whether painted or not, quality, carbon

content level, yield strength, thickness,

width, whether coil or cut sheet,

whether temper rolled or not temper

rolled, whether pickled or not pickled,

whether mill-edge or trimmed, and with

or without patterns in relief. Where

there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the home market to

compare to U.S. sales, we compared

U.S. sales to the next most similar

foreign like product, based on the

characteristics and characteristic

subcategories indicated in the

Department’s January 4, 2001,

questionnaire.

Facts Available (FA)

SSM

As noted above under ‘‘Case History,’’

SSM failed to respond to the

Department’s antidumping

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

the Act provides that ‘‘if any interested

party or any other person—(A)

withholds information that has been

requested by the administering

authority * * *, (B) fails to provide

such information by the deadlines for

the submission of the information or in

the form 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 * * * shall,

subject to section 782(d), use the facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.’’ The statute requires that certain

conditions be met before the

Department may resort to the facts

otherwise 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 782(e), disregard all or part of the

original and subsequent responses, as

appropriate. Briefly, section 782(e)

provides that the Department ‘‘shall not

decline to consider information that is

submitted by an interested party and is

necessary to the determination but does

not meet all the applicable requirements

established by the administering

authority’’ if the information is timely,

can be verified, is not so incomplete that

it cannot be used, and if the interested

party acted to the best of its ability in

providing the information. Where all of

these conditions are met, and the

Department can use the information

without undue difficulties, the statute

requires it to do so.

In this proceeding, SSM provided no

response to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. Because

SSM provided no information

whatsoever, sections 782 (d) and (e) of

the Act are not applicable, and the

Department is required to resort to the

use of facts available for this

respondent, in accordance with

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Moreover, we

note that at no time did SSM contact the

Department and state it was having

difficulty responding to the

questionnaire or otherwise explain why

it could not provide the requested

information. On January 25, 2001, we

contacted counsel for SSM to inquire if

SSM would be submitting a response to

Section A of the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. Counsel

confirmed that SSM would not be filing

any such response. See Memorandum to

the File from Angelica Mendoza

(January 25, 2001). Thus, we have also

determined that this respondent has not

cooperated to the best of its ability.

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of

the Act, we used an adverse inference

22202 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

in selecting a margin from the FA. As

FA, the Department has applied a

margin rate of 20.30 percent, the highest

alleged margin based on our

recalculation for Thailand in the

petition. See Memorandum from Joseph

A. Spetrini to Bernard T. Carreau,

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Thailand: Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value—The Use of Facts Available for

Siam Strip Mill Public Co. Ltd, and the

Corroboration of Secondary Information,

dated April 23, 2001 (Facts Available

Memorandum).

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

where the Department selects from

among the facts otherwise available and

relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ such

as the petition, the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate that

information from independent sources

reasonably at the Department’s disposal.

The Statement of Administrative Action

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

103–316, (1994) (hereinafter, the SAA)

states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to

determine that the information used has

probative value. See SAA at 870.

In this proceeding, we considered the

petition information the most

appropriate record information to use to

establish the dumping margins for this

uncooperative respondent because, in

the absence of verifiable data provided

by SSM, the petition information is the

best approximation available to the

Department of SSM’s pricing and selling

behavior in the U.S. market. In

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, we sought to corroborate the data

contained in the petition.

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 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 expenses, and profit.

Petitioners based depreciation, SG&A,

interest, and profit on publicly available

financial statements of a Thai steel

producer (SSI, a respondent in this

investigation). Therefore, because these

data are based on publicly available

financial statements, we find them to be

sufficiently corroborated. Petitioners

calculated COM based on their own

production experience, adjusted for

known differences between costs

incurred to produce HR in the United

States and Thailand using publicly

available data. To corroborate these

data, we compared it to the reported

COM of SSI and its affiliates. Our

analysis showed that the petitioners’

reported costs were reasonably close to

the data submitted by SSI and its

affiliates. Based on this analysis, we

find that the COM data used in the

antidumping petition have probative

value. See Facts Available

Memorandum.

Fair Value Comparisons for SSI

To determine whether sales of certain

hot-rolled carbon steel flat products

from Thailand were made in the United

States at LTFV, we compared the EP to

the NV, as described in the Export Price

and Normal Value sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

calculated POI weighted-average EPs for

comparison to POI weighted-average

NVs.

Export Price

We used EP methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act because SSI sold the merchandise

under investigation directly to an

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for

exportation to the United States prior to

the date of importation, and because a

CEP methodology was not otherwise

indicated. We based EP on packed

prices to the first unaffiliated customer.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2), we

made deductions from the starting price

for movement expenses, including

foreign inland freight and customs

brokerage and handling.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., whether the

aggregate quantity of the foreign like

product is equal to or greater than five

percent of the aggregate quantity of U.S.

sales), we compared SSI’s volume of

home market sales of the foreign like

product to the volume of U.S. sales of

the subject merchandise, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since

SSI’s aggregate quantity of home market

sales of the foreign like product was

greater than five percent of its aggregate

quantity of U.S. sales for the subject

merchandise, we determined that the

home market was viable for SSI.

Therefore, we have based NV on home

market sales in the usual commercial

quantities and in the ordinary course of

trade.

A. Affiliate Party Transactions and

Arm’s Length Test

To test whether sales to affiliated enduser customers are made at arm’s length

prices, we compare, on a model-specific

basis, the prices of sales to affiliated

customers with sales to unaffiliated

customers net of all movement charges,

billing adjustments, discounts, direct

selling expenses, and packing. Where,

for the tested models of foreign like

product, prices to the affiliated party are

on average 99.5 percent or more of the

price to unaffiliated parties, we

determine that such sales are made at

arm’s length prices. See 19 CFR

351.403(c); see also Antidumping

Duties; Countervailing Duties Final

Rule, 62 FR 27355 (May 19, 1997).

If these affiliated party sales satisfied

the arm’s-length test, we used them in

our analysis. Merchandise sold to

affiliated customers in the home market

made at non-arm’s length prices were

excluded from our analysis because we

considered them to be outside the

ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR

351.102. Where the exclusion of such

sales eliminated all sales of the most

appropriate comparison product, we

made a comparison to the next most

similar model.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

Based on our analysis of the cost

allegations submitted by petitioners in

the original petition, the Department

found reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that Thai producers had made

sales of HR in the home market at prices

below the cost of producing the

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. As a

result, the Department initiated an

investigation to determine whether

respondents made home market sales

during the POI at prices below their cost

of production (COP) within the meaning

of section 773(b) of the Act. We

conducted the COP analysis described

below.

1. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated a weightedaverage COP based on the sum of SSI’s

cost of materials and fabrication for the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

home market selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A),

interest expenses, and packing costs.

The Department relied on the COP and

CV data submitted by SSI on February

26, 2001 with the exception of the

following: (1) SSI reported a SG&A

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22203

expense ratio that was derived using

POI information (i.e., three-months of

1999 and nine-months of 2000). In

accordance with our established

practice, we recalculated SSI’s SG&A

expense ratio using information from

the company’s audited financial

statements; (2) SSI reported a financial

expense ratio that was derived using

unconsolidated POI information (i.e.,

three-months of 1999 and nine-months

of 2000). In accordance with our

established practice, we recalculated

SSI’s financial expense ratio using

information from its consolidated

financial statements. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Cut-to-Length CarbonQuality Steel Plate Products from

France, 64 FR 73143, 73152 (Dec. 29,

1999). This practice has been upheld by

the Court of International Trade. See

Gulf States Tube v. United States, 981

F. Supp. 630 (CIT 1997).

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COP for SSI to home market sales of the

foreign like product, as required under

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to

determine whether these sales had been

made at prices below the COP. In

determining whether to disregard home

market sales made at prices below the

COP, we examined whether such sales

were made (1) within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities,

and (2) at prices which would not

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, in accordance

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the

Act. On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges, discounts, and billing

adjustments.

3. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of SSI’s

sales of a given product were at prices

less than the COP, we did not disregard

any below-cost sales of that product

because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in substantial

quantities. Where 20 percent or more of

SSI’s sales of a given product during the

POI were at prices less than the COP, we

determined such sales to have been

made in substantial quantities, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i)

of the Act, within an extended period of

time. In such cases because we

compared prices to weighted-average

COPs for the POI, we also determined

that such sales were made at prices

which would not permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded

those below-cost sales.

D. Price-to-Price Comparison

We based NV for SSI on prices of

home market sales that passed the COP

test. We made deductions for billing

adjustments and discounts. We made

deductions, where appropriate, for

inland freight and inland insurance,

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the

Act. We made adjustments, where

appropriate, for physical differences in

the merchandise in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and

19 CFR 351.411. In accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs. In

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we made

circumstances of sale (COS) adjustments

for imputed credit expense, interest

revenue, and warranties. For the

calculation of imputed credit expense,

we based credit days on the number of

days between estimated shipment from

the plant and payment date, rather than

the number of days between shipment

from the port and payment date (see

Analysis Memo). We also re-coded all

home market and U.S. sales that

incurred warranty expenses. For further

information, see Analysis Memo.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (LOT) as the EP

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on

constructed value (CV), that of the sales

from which we derive SG&A expenses

and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also

the level of the starting-price sale,

which is usually from the exporter to

the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP, we examine

stages in the marketing process and

selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the producer and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make a

LOT adjustment pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62

FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In determining whether separate

LOTs actually existed in the home

market for the respondent, we examine

whether the respondent’s sales involved

different marketing stages (or their

equivalent) based on the channel of

distribution, customer categories, and

selling functions (or services offered) to

each customer or customer category, in

both markets.

SSI claimed one LOT in the U.S. and

two LOTs in the home market: LOT 1

includes direct sales to end-users,

trading companies, and service centers;

and LOT 2 includes all sales made

through its affiliates. SSI claimed that

all U.S. sales are at the same LOT as

LOT 1 in the home market. SSI reported

four channels of distribution for home

market sales made through LOT 1 and

LOT 2. The first channel of distribution

was sales made through unaffiliated

trading companies with one customer

category (i.e., end-users). The second

channel of distribution was sales made

through affiliated trading companies

with two customer categories (i.e., endusers and service centers). The third

channel of distribution was direct sales

with one customer category (i.e.,

unaffiliated end-users). The fourth

channel of distribution was direct sales

with one customer category (i.e., endusers/resellers).

In analyzing SSI’s selling activities for

its home market and U.S. market, we

determined that essentially the same

services were provided for both markets.

Due to the proprietary nature of the

levels of these selling activities, for

further analysis, see Analysis Memo.

Therefore, based upon this information,

we have preliminarily determined that

the LOT for all EP sales is the same as

the LOT for all sales in the home

market. Accordingly, because we find

the U.S. sales and home market sales to

be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is

warranted for SSI.

Currency Conversions

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

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,