[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33522-33525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-860]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Constance Handley, Group 
II, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4162, (202) 482-0631, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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).

[[Page 33523]]

Final Determination

    We determine that steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) is being sold, or is likely to be 
sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 
in section 735 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
shown in the Final Margins section of this notice.

Case History

    The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on 
January 16, 2001. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 8339 
(January 30, 2001) (Preliminary Determination).
    We conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of Laiwu 
Steel Group, Ltd., and Laiwu Steel Corporation (collectively, Laiwu), 
from March 5 through March 9, 2001.
    On March 1, 2001, Laiwu requested a hearing, and on March 2, 2001, 
the petitioner \1\ requested to participate in a hearing if a hearing 
was to be held. However, on May 4, 2001, Laiwu withdrew its request for 
a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner in this investigation is the Rebar Trade 
Action Coalition (RTAC), and its individual members, AmerSteel, 
Auburn Steel Co., Inc., Birmingham Steel Corp., Border Steel, Inc., 
Marion Steel Company, Riverview Steel, and Nucor Steel and CMC Steel 
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 734(m) of the Act states that in the case of regional 
industry investigations, the administering authority shall offer 
exporters the opportunity to enter into suspension agreements. Proposed 
and finalized agreements in these cases must comport with the 
requirements set forth under section 734 of the Act for the suspension 
of antidumping duty investigations. The exporter participating in the 
instant investigation was aware of its opportunity to propose a 
suspension agreement. However, the Department did not accept a 
suspension agreement in this proceeding. See Memorandum from Holly Kuga 
to The File, dated April 2, 2001.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is all 
rebar sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. Specifically 
excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar 
that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 1999, through March 
31, 2000. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., June 
2000).

Non-market Economy Country

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping investigations. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000), and Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen 
Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
19873 (April 13, 2000). A designation as a NME remains in effect until 
it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. The 
respondent in this investigation has not requested a revocation of the 
PRC's NME status. Therefore, we have continued to treat the PRC as a 
NME in this investigation. For further details, see the Department's 
Preliminary Determination.

Separate Rates

    In our preliminary determination, we found that Laiwu had met the 
criteria for the application of separate antidumping duty rates. We 
have not received any other information since the preliminary 
determination which would warrant reconsideration of our separate rates 
determination with respect to Laiwu. Therefore, we continue to find 
that Laiwu should be assigned an individual dumping margin. For a 
complete discussion of the Department's determination that Laiwu is 
entitled to a separate rate, see the Department's Preliminary 
Determination.

The People's Republic of China-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise 
Available

    As explained in the Department's Preliminary Determination, Laiwu 
was the only exporter to respond to the Department's questionnaire and 
cooperate in this investigation. Therefore, we have continued to 
calculate a company-specific rate for Laiwu only. However, in the 
Preliminary Determination, we stated that our review of U.S. import 
statistics from the PRC reveals that Laiwu did not account for all 
imports into the United States from the PRC. For this reason, we 
determined that some PRC exporters of rebar failed to cooperate in this 
investigation. In accordance with our standard practice, as adverse 
facts available, we are assigning as the PRC-wide rate the higher of: 
(1) The highest margin stated in the notice of initiation; or (2) the 
margin calculated for Laiwu. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality 
Steel Products From The People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 
31, 2000). For purposes of the final determination of this 
investigation, we are using the margin calculated for Laiwu since it is 
higher than the margin stated in the notice of initiation.

Surrogate Country

    For purposes of the final determination, we find that India remains 
the appropriate primary surrogate country for the PRC. For further 
discussion and analysis regarding the surrogate country selection for 
the PRC, see the Department's Preliminary Determination.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the 
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from China (Decision 
Memorandum), from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Import Administration to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, dated June 14, 2001, which is hereby adopted by this 
notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in 
this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public 
memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of 
the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments 
received, we have made adjustments to the calculation methodology in 
calculating the final dumping margin in this proceeding. These 
adjustments are summarized below:

[[Page 33524]]

    1. For the export price, we have recalculated the inflator used to 
adjust the rate of brokerage and handling. For further details, see 
Comment 9 in the Decision Memorandum, and Memorandum To the File, 
Analysis Memorandum for Laiwu Steel Group Ltd. and Laiwu Steel 
Corporation re: Final Determination (Analysis Memorandum), dated June 
14, 2001.
    2. With regard to two inputs into the production of rebar, iron ore 
concentrate and iron ore fines, a portion of these inputs was produced 
by Laiwu, and the remaining portion was purchased from suppliers. The 
valuation of the self-produced portion of these material inputs was 
based on adverse facts available because we found at verification that 
Laiwu misreported its corporate structure. Had we known prior to 
verification that certain divisions of Laiwu actually produced a 
portion of its iron ore concentrate and iron ore fines, we would have 
requested Laiwu's factors of production for these inputs. We used, as 
adverse facts available, the Egyptian 1998 non-agglomerated iron ore 
price from the United Nation's Handbook of World Mineral Statistics, 
1993-1998, inflated to the POI. For the remaining portion of iron ore 
concentrate, which was purchased from domestic suppliers, with the 
exception of one transaction involving a market-economy country, we 
used a surrogate value from the Philippines because we could not find 
an appropriate surrogate value from India. Unlike the preliminary 
determination, we did not use the actual market-economy price because 
at verification we discovered that the transaction in question was 
unusual in that the iron ore purchased was not comparable to the iron 
ore concentrate normally used by Laiwu. For the remaining portion of 
iron ore fines, which was purchased from a market-economy country at 
market-economy prices, we continued to use the actual price paid by 
Laiwu. For further details, see Comment 1 in the Decision Memorandum, 
and the Analysis Memorandum.
    3. For selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and 
overhead, we used a simple average of the ratios derived from the 
financial statements of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and the 
Steel Authority of India (SAIL). With respect to profit, we used only 
TATA's profit rate because SAIL's financial statement does not reflect 
profit. For further details, see Comment 8 in the Decision Memorandum, 
and the Analysis Memorandum.
    4. With respect to the by-products water slag and oxide iron skin, 
we have determined that the Indian values for those by-products were 
aberrational. For this reason, we based the value for water slag on 
pricing information provided in the U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals, 
Commodities Summaries, and the value for oxide iron skin on the U.N. 
Commodity Trade Statistics for Indonesia. For further details see 
Comment 5-B in the Decision Memorandum, and the Analysis Memorandum.
    5. We did not offset the normal value for the by-product ammonia 
water because, at verification, Laiwu was unable to present evidence 
that it sold ammonia water to outside customers, or that the ammonia 
water was of a commercial value and had indeed been reintroduced in the 
production process of Laiwu's non-subject products. See Comment 5-C in 
the Decision Memorandum, and the Analysis Memorandum.
    6. For the input hoist link, we granted Laiwu an offset to the cost 
of the hoist links equal to the value of the end-cutting scrap provided 
by Laiwu to the manufacturer of hoist link. See Comment 5-H of Decision 
Memorandum, and the Analysis Memorandum.
    7. We corrected minor errors in the value of ferrosilicon and 
aluminum manganese to reflect the quantity and value of imports from 
only market-economy countries. See Comment 9 of the Decision 
Memorandum, and the Analysis Memorandum.
    8. We revised the value of coal to reflect bituminous coal, and the 
value of coal fines to reflect anthracite coal. See Comment 5-E of the 
Decision Memorandum, and the Analysis Memorandum.
    9. We revised the value of briquetting scrap to correspond to the 
value for cast iron scrap. See Comment 5-E of Decision Memorandum, and 
the Analysis Memorandum.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by the respondent for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by the respondents.

Critical Circumstances

    Based on new information on the record of this investigation and 
information provided in our preliminary affirmative critical 
circumstances determination, we have determined, for purposes of the 
final determination, that critical circumstances exist for Laiwu Steel 
Group and the non-responding exporters. For further details, see the 
Memorandum from Case Analysts to Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the People's Republic of China 
PRC--Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, dated 
June 14, 2001.

Final Margins

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins 
for the PRC exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laiwu Steel Group..........................................       133.00
PRC-Wide Rate..............................................       133.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from exporters/producers that are identified 
individually above.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of steel concrete reinforcing bars from the PRC that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
November 1, 2000, (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of 
the preliminary determinations in the Federal Register). The Customs 
Service shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a 
bond based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown 
below. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, 
whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of 
material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC 
determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing

[[Page 33525]]

Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 14, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    Appendix

List of Comments in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. GENERAL ISSUES
Comment 1: Value of iron ore concentrate
Comment 2: Actual vs. theoretical weight
Comment 3: Calculation of SG&A and Overhead
Comment 4: Application of Overhead Ratio to the Upstream Stages of 
Production
Comment 5: Appropriate Surrogate Values and Treatment for Certain 
Material Inputs
Comment 6: Appropriate Rate for Ocean Freight
Comment 7: Re-calculating Overhead to Include the Cost of Minor 
Materials
Comment 8: Basis for Financial Ratios
Comment 9: Clerical Errors

[FR Doc. 01-15652 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-U