Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30695

vanadium from Russia would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time (66 FR 28540).

Therefore, pursuant to 751(d)(2) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(4), the

Department is publishing this notice of

the continuation of the antidumping

duty order on ferrovanadium and

nitrided vanadium from Russia.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit or James P. Maeder,

Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5050 or (202) 482–

3330, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 5, 2000, the Department

initiated (65 FR 35604), and the

Commission instituted (65 FR 35668), a

sunset review of the antidumping duty

order on ferrovanadium and nitrided

vanadium from Russia, pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act. As a result of

its review, the Department found that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and notified the Commission of the

magnitude of the margin likely to

prevail were the order revoked. See

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review of Antidumping Duty Order,

Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium

From Russia, 65 FR 60168 (October 10,

2000).

On May 23, 2001, the Commission

determined, pursuant to section 751(c)

of the Act, that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium

from Russia would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time. See Ferrovanadium and Nitrided

Vanadium From Russia, 66 FR 28540

(May 23, 2001) and USITC Publication

3420 (May 2001), Investigation No. 731–

TA–702 (Review).

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to this order

are ferrovanadium and nitrided

vanadium, regardless of grade,

chemistry, form or size, unless expressly

excluded from the scope of this order.

Ferrovanadium includes alloys

containing ferrovanadium as the

predominant element by weight (i.e.,

more weight than any other element,

except iron in some instances) and at

least 4 percent by weight of iron.

Nitrided vanadium includes compounds

containing vanadium as the

predominant element, by weight, and at

least 5 percent, by weight, of nitrogen.

Excluded from the scope of the order are

vanadium additives other than

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium,

such as vanadium-aluminum master

alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium

waste and scrap, vanadium-bearing raw

materials, such as slag, boiler residues,

fly ash, and vanadium oxides.

The products subject to this order are

currently classifiable under subheadings

2850.00.20, 7202.92.00, 7202.99.50.40,

8112.40.30.00, and 8112.40.60.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope is

dispositive.

Determination

As a result of the determination by the

Department, and the Commission, that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and material injury to an industry in the

United States, pursuant to section

751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department

hereby orders the continuation of the

antidumping duty order on

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium

from Russia. The effective date of

continuation of this order will be the

date of publication in the Federal

Register of this Notice of Continuation.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act,

the Department intends to initiate the

next five-year review of this order not

later than May 2006.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–14379 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–851]

Preliminary Results of New Shipper

Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a timely

request from Green Fresh Foods

(Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd., on October 2,

2000, the Department of Commerce

published a notice of initiation of a new

shipper review of the antidumping duty

order on certain preserved mushrooms

from the People’s Republic of China

with respect to the above-mentioned

exporter. The period of review is

February 1, 2000, through July 31, 2000.

See Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 65 FR 58735 (October 2, 2000).

As a result of this review, the

Department of Commerce has

preliminarily determined that a

dumping margin exists for exports of the

subject merchandise for the covered

period.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

their arguments (1) a statement of the

issues and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Rebecca Trainor,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4136 or

(202) 482–4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

part 351 (2000).

Background

On February 19, 1999, the Department

published in the Federal Register (64

FR 8308) an antidumping duty order on

certain preserved mushrooms from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC). On

August 31, 2000, the Department

received a timely request from Green

Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co. (Green

Fresh), in accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.214(c), for a new shipper review of

this antidumping duty order.

On September 22, 2000, the

Department initiated a new shipper

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain preserved mushrooms from

the PRC (see Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic

of China: Initiation of New Shipper

30696 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices

1On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

See ‘‘Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling

of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain

Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China.’’

Antidumping Duty Review, 65 FR 58735

(October 2, 2000)). On September 28,

2000, the Department issued the

antidumping questionnaire to Green

Fresh. We received responses to the

antidumping questionnaire on October

19, 2000, and December 11, 2000.

On December 18, 2000, the

Department provided the parties an

opportunity to submit publicly available

information for consideration in these

preliminary results.

The Department issued a

supplemental questionnaire to Green

Fresh on January 9, 2001, and received

a response on February 9, 2001.

We conducted verification of Green

Fresh and its affiliated producer, Zhang

Zhou Longhai Lubao Food Co., Ltd.

(Lubao) on March 14 and 15, 2001. We

issued a verification report on April 17,

2001.

Scope of the Order

The products covered by the order are

certain preserved mushrooms whether

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as

stems and pieces. The preserved

mushrooms covered under the order are

the species Agaricus bisporus and

Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved

mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that

have been prepared or preserved by

cleaning, blanching, and sometimes

slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are

then packed and heated in containers

including but not limited to cans or

glass jars in a suitable liquid medium,

including but not limited to water,

brine, butter, or butter sauce. Preserved

mushrooms may be imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

Included within the scope of the order

are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are

presalted and packed in a heavy salt

solution to provisionally preserve them

for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of the order

are the following: (1) All other species

of mushroom, including straw

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’; (3) dried

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are

prepared or preserved by means of

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain

oil or other additives.1

The merchandise subject to the order

is classifiable under subheadings

2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031,

2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043,

2003.10.0047, 2003.10.0053, and

0711.90.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of the order is dispositive.

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving non-market

economy (NME) countries, the

Department begins with a rebuttable

presumption that all companies within

the country are subject to government

control and thus should be assessed a

single antidumping duty deposit rate. In

this case, Green Fresh has requested a

separate company-specific rate. Green

Fresh is owned by a holding company,

Zhangzhou Longhai Lubao Can Foods

Co., Ltd. (Longhai), and a U.S. citizen.

Longhai is owned by three individuals

in the PRC.

The Department’s separate rate test to

determine whether a company engages

in export activities independent of

government control is not concerned, in

general, with macroeconomic/bordertype controls, e.g., export licenses,

quotas, and minimum export prices,

particularly if these controls are

imposed to prevent dumping. The test

focuses, rather, on government controls

over export-related investment, pricing,

and production decisions at the

individual firm level. See e.g., Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754,

61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, from the

People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276,

61279 (November 17, 1997); and Honey

from the People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725,

14726 (March 20, 1995).

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control in its export

activities to be entitled to a separate

rate, the Department analyzes each

exporting entity under a test arising out

of the Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR

20588 (May 6, 1991) and amplified in

the Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).

Under the separate rates criteria, the

Department assigns separate rates in

NME cases only if respondents can

demonstrate the absence of both de jure

and de facto governmental control over

export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

In prior PRC cases, the Department

has analyzed laws provided by

respondents to demonstrate absence of

de jure control, such as the ‘‘Foreign

Trade Law of the People’s Republic of

China’’ and the ‘‘Company Law of the

People’s Republic of China’’ (see Memo

to the File dated May 23, 2001, placed

on the record of this review), and found

that such PRC laws establish an absence

of de jure control. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain PartialExtension Steel Drawer Slides with

Rollers from the People’s Republic of

China, 60 FR 54472 (October 24, 1995);

see also Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol

form the People’s Republic of China, 60

FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl

Alcohol). We have no new information

in this proceeding which would cause

us to conclude that these laws do not

apply to Green Fresh.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that, within the PRC

preserved mushroom industry, the

aforementioned laws of the PRC

demonstrate an absence of de jure

government control over export pricing

and marketing decisions of Green Fresh.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

As stated in previous cases, there is

some evidence that certain enactments

of the PRC central government have not

been implemented uniformly among

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in

the PRC. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at

22587 and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at

22545. Therefore, the Department has

determined that an analysis of de facto

control is critical in determining

whether respondents are, in fact, subject

to a degree of governmental control

which would preclude the Department

from assigning separate rates.

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) whether the export prices

are set by, or subject to, the approval of

a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of its management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30697

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at

22587 and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at

22545.

Green Fresh asserted the following:

(1) It establishes its own export prices;

(2) it negotiates contracts without

guidance from any governmental

entities or organizations; (3) it makes its

own personnel decisions; and (4) it

retains the proceeds of its export sales,

uses profits according to its business

needs, and has the authority to sell its

assets and obtain loans. Furthermore,

our analysis of Green Fresh’s

questionnaire responses reveals no

information indicating government

control. This information supports a

preliminary finding that there is an

absence of de facto governmental

control of Green Fresh’s export

functions. Consequently, we

preliminarily determine that Green

Fresh has met the criteria for the

application of a separate rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether the sale of the

subject merchandise by Green Fresh to

the United States was made at less than

normal value, we compared the export

price to the normal value, as described

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice, below.

Export Price

We used export price methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to unaffiliated

customers in the United States prior to

importation and constructed export

price methodology was not otherwise

indicated.

We calculated export price based on

a packed, free on board Xiamen, PRC,

price to the first unaffiliated purchaser

in the United States. Where appropriate,

we made a deduction from the starting

price (gross unit price) for foreign

inland freight and foreign brokerage and

handling in the PRC, in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act. Because

foreign inland freight and foreign

brokerage and handling fees were

provided by NME entities or paid for in

a NME currency, we based those charges

on surrogate rates from India (see

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section below). To

value foreign inland trucking charges

and foreign brokerage and handling

expenses and/or port loading charges,

we used November 1999 Indian freight

companies’ and freight forwarders’ price

quotes, respectively, obtained by the

Department in other antidumping duty

proceedings.

Normal Value

A. Non-Market Economy Status

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as a NME country. Any

determination that a foreign country is

a NME country shall remain in effect

until revoked by the Department (see

section 771(18)(c) of the Act). None of

the parties to this proceeding has

contested such treatment. Accordingly,

we calculated normal value in

accordance with section 773(c) of the

Act, which applies to NME countries.

B. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more market

economy countries that: (1) are at a level

of economic development comparable to

that of the NME, and (2) are significant

producers of comparable merchandise.

The Department has determined that

India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka,

and the Philippines are countries

comparable to the PRC in terms of

overall economic development and are

significant producers of the subject

merchandise (see Memorandum dated

December 4, 2000). According to the

available information on the record, we

have determined that India meets the

statutory requirements for an

appropriate surrogate country for the

PRC. Accordingly, we have calculated

normal value using Indian values for the

PRC producer’s factors of production.

We have obtained and relied upon

publicly available information wherever

possible.

C. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated normal value

based on factors of production reported

by Lubao which produced preserved

mushrooms for Green Fresh which in

turn sold them to the United States

during the POR. To calculate normal

value, the reported unit factor quantities

were multiplied by publicly available

Indian values, except as noted below.

The selection of the surrogate values

applied in this determination was based

on the quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. Wherever

possible and appropriate, we used nonproducer-specific prices in accordance

with the preamble to the Department’s

regulations, Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, at 62

FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997). As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices to

reflect delivered values. Where the

producer did not report the distance

between the material supplier and the

factory, as facts available, we used the

distance to the nearest seaport because

an import value was used as the

surrogate value for the factor. For those

values not contemporaneous with the

POR and quoted in a foreign currency,

we adjusted for inflation using

wholesale price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics. A

complete analysis of the surrogate

values may be found in the Preliminary

Determination Valuation Memorandum

from the Team to the File (Preliminary

Determination Valuation

Memorandum), dated May 31, 2001.

We valued the major material inputs

used in the production of the subject

merchandise using the following

sources. For fresh mushrooms, we used

the simple average of the fresh

mushrooms prices quoted in the Indian

publication The Economic Times during

the POR. We revised the average

calculated by Green Fresh to include the

daily high price. We valued cans and

lids using the per-piece value derived

from the notes to the Indian producer

Agro Dutch Industries, Ltd.’s 1999–2000

financial statement. Because the

surrogate value is for a complete can set

(can and lid), we applied the value only

to the can consumption factor to avoid

double-counting.

For agricultural inputs, such as

spawn, cow manure, and straw, we

derived unit values from Agro Dutch’s

1999–2000 financial statement and

notes.

We valued salt and citric acid based

on the 1998–1999 financial statement of

the Indian producer Weikfield Agro

Products Ltd. We valued labels and glue

based on the weighted-average unit

values derived from the Monthly Trade

Statistics of Foreign Trade of India,

Volume II—Imports. We did not value

water separately because, consistent

with our methodology in the 1998–2000

reviews, we believe that the costs for

water are included as factory overhead

in the Indian financial statements used

to calculate factory overhead, selling,

general and administrative (SG&A)

expenses, and profit.

We valued gypsum based on the unit

value derived from relevant data in

Weikfield’s and Saptarishi Agro’s 1998–

1999 financial statements. We based the

surrogate values for calcareous (calcium

carbonate or chalk) and carbamide

(urea) on the average unit prices for the

material quoted in the Indian

publication Chemical Weekly from

February through July 2000. Because the

average domestic price includes Indian

excise tax, we adjusted the average

value by subtracting the 18% excise tax,

based on the methodology applied to

30698 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices

values from the same source in the

1999–2000 investigation of Synthetic

Indigo from the PRC. We valued

calcium phosphate using U.S. prices

quoted in the U.S. publication Chemical

Marketing Reporter for ‘‘Calcium

Phosphate, dibasic, feed grade, 18.5% P.

bulk’’ in October and December 1999.

We valued packing materials,

including cardboard boxes, packing

tape, and packing paper, using the

weighted-average unit values derived

from the Indian Import Statistics,

August and December 1998.

We valued labor based on a

regression-based wage rate in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value electricity, we used the

average rupees/kilowatt hour rate

derived from the 1998–1999 financial

statements of four Indian preservedmushroom producers. We based the

value of coal on the weighted average of

rates obtained from two sources: (1) the

rupees/metric ton rate of ‘‘Coal (for

steam raising)’’ published in the 1998–

1999 annual report for the Indian

company Polychem, Ltd.; and (2) the

1998 weighted-average unit value for

Indian imports of Bituminous coal, not

agglomerated from the Commodity

Trade Statistics published by the United

Nations Statistics Division.

We based our calculation of factory

overhead (including water), SG&A

expenses, and profit using ratios derived

from financial statements of three

Indian producers of the subject

merchandise whose production and

sales activity is comprised mostly of

preserved mushrooms and other food

products and who were profitable

during the POR.

To value truck freight rates, we used

the average of November 1999 Indian

freight companies’ price quotes

discussed in the ‘‘Export Price’’ section

above.

The United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s)

decision in Sigma Corp. v. United

States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (CAFC 1997)

requires that we revise our calculation

of source-to-factory surrogate freight for

those material inputs that are based on

CIF import values in the surrogate

country. Therefore, we have added to

CIF surrogate values from India a

surrogate freight cost using the shorter

of the reported distances from (1) the

closest PRC port to the factory or (2) the

domestic supplier to the factory, on an

import-specific basis.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margin for

the January 31, 2000, through July 31,

2000, POR is as follows:

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin

percent

Green Fresh Foods Zhangzhou

Co., Ltd ................................. 31.10

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties to this

proceeding within five days of the

publication date of this notice. See 19

CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party

may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If

requested, a hearing will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Issues raised in any hearing will be

limited to those raised in the respective

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. See 19

CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from

interested parties and rebuttal briefs,

limited to the issues raised in the

respective case briefs, may be submitted

not later than 30 days and 37 days,

respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Parties are

also encouraged to provide a summary

of the arguments not to exceed five

pages and a table of statutes,

regulations, and cases cited.

The Department will issue the final

results of this new shipper review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any written briefs or at

the hearing, if held, not later than 90

days after the date on which the

preliminary results are issued.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, Room B–099,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Requests should contain:

(1) The party’s name, address, and

telephone number; (2) the number of

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be

discussed.

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may

submit additional publicly available

information to value the factors of

production for the final results of this

review until 20 days after publication of

these results, unless a written request

for an extension is received and granted.

Assessment Rates

Upon completion of this new shipper

review, the Department shall determine,

and the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of this review. The final

results of this review shall be the basis

for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the final results of this

review and for future deposits of

estimated duties. Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate without

regard to antidumping duties all entries

for any importer for whom the

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less

than 0.50 percent). For assessment

purposes, we intend to calculate an

entry-specific ad valorem duty

assessment rate for Green Fresh, whose

sale and entry under review occurred in

different PORs, based on the ratio of the

total amount of the dumping margins

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of those same sales.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entry for this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this new shipper review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for the reviewed company

will be that established in the final

results of this review, except if the rate

is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore,

de minimis within the meaning of 19

CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the

cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above that have

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

the cash deposit rate for all other PRC

manufacturers or exporters will

continue to be 198.63 percent, the

‘‘PRC-Wide’’ rate made effective by the

LTFV investigation; and (4) for all nonPRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be 198.63 percent, the

‘‘PRC-Wide’’ rate made effective by the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Notices 30699

LTFV investigation. These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This new shipper review and notice

are published in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–14380 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–831]

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the

Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of stainless steel plate in coils from the

Republic of Korea.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel plate in coils from the Republic of

Korea in response to a request from

respondent, Pohang Iron & Steel Co.,

Ltd. (‘‘POSCO’’). This review covers

imports of subject merchandise from

POSCO. The period of review (‘‘POR’’)

is November 4, 1998 through April 30,

2000.

Our preliminary results of review

indicate that respondent POSCO has

sold subject merchandise at less than

normal value (‘‘NV’’) during the POR. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on suspended entries for POSCO.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

segment of the proceeding should also

submit with each argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brandon Farlander, Laurel LaCivita or

Rick Johnson, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0182,

(202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–3818,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

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

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round

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

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (2000).

Background

On May 16, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on stainless

steel plate in coils from the Republic of

Korea (65 FR 31141). On May 31, 2000,

petitioners (Allegheny Ludlum, AK

Steel Corporation (formerly Armco,

Inc.), J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., North

American Stainless, Butler-Armco

Independent Union, Zanesville Armco

Independent Union, and the United

Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/

CLC) and POSCO, a producer and

exporter of subject merchandise during

the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(1) and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2),

respectively, requested an

administrative review of the

antidumping order covering the period

November 4, 1998, through April 30,

2000. On July 7, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of initiation of administrative

review of this order (65 FR 41942).

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of an

administrative review if it determines

that it is not practicable to complete the

review within the statutory time limit.

On December 18, 2000, the Department

extended the time limit for the

preliminary results in this review to

March 19, 2001. See Stainless Steel

Plate in Coils From the Republic of

Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR

81488 (December 26, 2000). On March

7, 2001, the Department extended the

time limit for the preliminary and final

results in this review. The preliminary

results are now due on May 31, 2001.

The final results are due 180 days after

the date of the publication of the

preliminary results. See Stainless Steel

Plate in Coils From the Republic of

Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the

Preliminary and Final Results of the

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 66 FR 14891 (March 14, 2001).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified sales and cost

information provided by POSCO, from

February 2, 2001, to February 14, 2001,

and February 19, 2001, to February 23,

2001, respectively, using standard

verification procedures, including an

examination of relevant sales, cost, and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

version of the verification report and are

on file in the Central Records Unit

(‘‘CRU’’) located in room B–099 of the

main Department of Commerce

Building, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this order is

certain stainless steel plate in coils.

Stainless steel is an alloy steel

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more

of chromium, with or without other

elements. The subject plate products are

flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in

width and 4.75 mm or more in

thickness, in coils, and annealed or

otherwise heat treated and pickled or

otherwise descaled. The subject plate

may also be further processed (e.g.,

cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that

it maintains the specified dimensions of

plate following such processing.

Excluded from the scope of this order is

the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2)

plate that is not annealed or otherwise

heat treated and pickled or otherwise

descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat

bars. In addition, certain cold-rolled

stainless steel plate in coils is also

excluded from the scope of this order.

The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel

plate in coils is defined as that

merchandise which meets the physical

characteristics described above that has

undergone a cold-reduction process that

reduced the thickness of the steel by 25

percent or more, and has been annealed

and pickled after this cold reduction

process.

The merchandise subject to this order

is currently classifiable in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) at subheadings:

7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60,