67202 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

Third Quarter, 2000, and adjusted the

amount for inflation. As the basis for

valuing argon, nitrogen, and oxygen, we

have relied on 1999 data from UN Trade

Commodity Statistics (UNTCS), United

Nations. We also valued bentonite and

coal tar using the data from the UNTCS.

Furthermore, we used a website

(www.indiainfoline.com) providing

market prices for natural gas in 2000 to

calculate a percentage of Maanshanproduced gas to natural gas and derive

a surrogate value for gas. We valued

water based on data from the Asian

Development Bank’s Second Water

Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific

Region (published in 1997).

Maanshan purchased iron ore from

market-economy suppliers during the

POI, one of which was an affiliate. We

compared the price paid to the affiliated

supplier with the prices paid to the

unaffiliated market-economy suppliers

and found that the price from the

affiliated supplier was within the same

range as those from the unaffiliated

market-economy suppliers. Therefore,

we used the weighted-average price

reported by Maanshan.

The only input Maanshan reported for

packing was steel strap. We used Indian

Import Statistics data for the POI to

value this input.

To value truck rates, we used freight

costs based on price quotes obtained by

the Department in November 1999 from

trucking companies in India. For rail

transportation, we valued rail rates

using information published by the

Indian Railway Conference Association

in June 1998, as adjusted for inflation.

To value marine insurance and

brokerage and handling we used a

publicly summarized version of the

average value for marine insurance

expenses and brokerage and handling

expenses reported in Certain Stainless

Steel Wire Rod from India; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

and New Shipper Reviews, 64 FR 856

(January 6, 1999).

To value factory overhead, and

selling, general and administrative

expenses and profit, we used rates based

on financial information from an Indian

integrated steel producer, Tata, a

producer of subject merchandise whose

March 2000 financial statement was

provided by the petitioners in an

October 9, 2001, submission.

For labor, consistent with 19 CFR

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC

regression-based wage rate at the Import

Administration’s home page, Import

Library, Expected Wages of Selected

NME Countries, revised in May 2000

(see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The

source of the wage rate data on the

Import Administration’s web site is the

1999 Year Book of Labour Statistics,

International Labor Organization

(Geneva: 1999), Chapter 5B: Wages in

Manufacturing.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the

Act, we intend to verify all company

information relied upon in making our

final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise 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 Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the EP, as indicated below.

These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

percentage

margin

Maanshan Iron & Steel Co.,

Ltd. ........................................ 159.60

China-Wide ............................... 117.21

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 threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted to the Department no later

than seven days after the date of the

final verification report issued in this

proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

five days from the deadline date for case

briefs. A list of authorities used and an

executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. This summary should be

limited to five pages total, including

footnotes. In accordance with section

774 of the Act, we will hold a public

hearing, if requested, to afford interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal

briefs. Tentatively, any hearing will be

held two days after the rebuttal brief

deadline date at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at

a time and location to be determined.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

date, time, and location of the hearing

48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the date of publication of this

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests

should contain: (1) The party’s name,

address, and telephone number; (2) the

number of participants; and (3) a list of

the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

We will make our final determination

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 19, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31981 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–838]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine

that structural steel beams from Taiwan

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value, as

provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on this preliminary

determination. Since we are postponing

the final determination, we will make

our final determination not later than

135 days after the date of publication of

this preliminary determination in the

Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67203

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4007 or (202) 482–

4929, 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

(‘‘Department’s’’) regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April

2001).

Background

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Structural Steel

Beams From the People’s Republic of

China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,

Russia, South Africa, Spain, and

Taiwan, 66 FR 33048 (June 20, 2001))

(Initiation Notice), the following events

have occurred.

On July 9, 2001, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

structural steel beams from Taiwan are

materially injuring the United States

industry (see ITC Investigation Nos.

731–TA–935–942 (Publication No.

3438)).

On July 26, 2001, we selected the two

largest producers/exporters of structural

steel beams from Taiwan as the

mandatory respondents in this

proceeding. For further discussion, see

Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach,

Senior Director Office 1, from The Team

Re: Respondent Selection. We

subsequently issued the antidumping

questionnaire to Kuei Yi Industrial Co.,

Ltd. (‘‘Kuei Yi’’) and Tung Ho Steel

Enterprise Corp. (‘‘Tung Ho’’) on July

26, 2001.

During the period August through

November 2001, the Department

received responses to sections A, B, C

and D of the Department’s original and

supplemental questionnaires from Kuei

Yi and Tung Ho.

On September 25, 2001, pursuant to

19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners made

a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination. We granted

this request on October 2, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

November 30, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from

the People’s Republic of China,

Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia,

South Africa, Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR

51639 (October 10, 2001)). On October

30, 2001, the petitioners made another

timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination for an

additional 19 days. We granted this

request on October 31, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

December 19, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determinations:

Structural Steel Beams from the

People’s Republic of China, Germany,

Italy, Luxembourg, Russia, South Africa,

Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR 56078

(November 6, 2001)).

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the

Act, on November 30 and December 7,

2001, Tung Ho and Kuei Yi,

respectively, requested that, in the event

of an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 135

days after the date of the publication of

the preliminary determination in the

Federal Register, and extend the

provisional measures to not more than

six months. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2) Kuei Yi

and Tung Ho account for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject

merchandise, and (3) no compelling

reasons for denial exist, we are granting

the respondents’ request and are

postponing the final determination until

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Suspension of liquidation will

be extended accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

The scope of these investigations

covers doubly-symmetric shapes,

whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn,

extruded, formed or finished, having at

least one dimension of at least 80 mm

(3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon

or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and

whether or not drilled, punched,

notched, painted, coated, or clad. These

structural steel beams include, but are

not limited to, wide-flange beams (‘‘W’’

shapes), bearing piles (‘‘HP’’ shapes),

standard beams (‘‘S’’ or ‘‘I’’ shapes), and

M-shapes. All the products that meet

the physical and metallurgical

descriptions provided above are within

the scope of these investigations unless

otherwise excluded. The following

products are outside and/or specifically

excluded from the scope of these

investigations: (1) Structural steel beams

greater than 400 pounds per linear foot,

(2) structural steel beams that have a

web or section height (also known as

depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural

steel beams that have additional

weldments, connectors or attachments

to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings;

however, if the only additional

weldment, connector or attachment on

the beam is a shipping brace attached to

maintain stability during transportation,

the beam is not removed from the scope

definition by reason of such additional

weldment, connector or attachment.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheadings 7216.32.0000,

7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060,

7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000,

7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000,

7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000,

7228.70.3040, and 7228.70.6000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Scope Comments

In accordance with the preamble to

our regulations (see Antidumping

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we set

aside a period of time for parties to raise

issues regarding product coverage and

encouraged all parties to submit

comments within 20 calendar days of

publication of the Initiation Notice (see

66 FR 33048–33049). Interested parties

submitted such comments by July 10,

2001. Additional comments were

subsequently submitted by interested

parties.

Pursuant to the Department’s

solicitation of scope comments in the

Initiation Notice, interested parties in

this and the concurrent structural steel

beams investigations request that the

following products be excluded from

the scope of the investigations: (1)

Beams of grade A913/65 and (2) forklift

mast profiles.

With respect to the scope-exclusion

requests for the A913/65 beam and

forklift mast profiles, the interested

parties rely upon 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2)

and reason that, in general, these

products differ from the structural steel

beams covered by the scope of the

investigations in terms of physical

characteristics, ultimate uses, purchaser

expectations, channels of trade, manner

67204 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

of advertising and display and/or price.

They also argue that these products are

not produced by the petitioners.

In considering whether these products

should be included within the scope of

the investigations, we analyzed the

arguments submitted by all of the

interested parties in the context of the

criteria enumerated in the court

decision Diversified Products Corp. v.

United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 889

(CIT 1983) (‘‘Diversified’’). For these

analyses, we relied upon the petition,

the submissions by all interested

parties, the International Trade

Commission’s (‘‘ITC’’) preliminary

determination, and other information.

After considering the respondent’s

comments and the petitioners’

objections to the exclusion requests

regarding the A913/65 beam, we find

that the description of this grade of

structural steel beam is dispositive such

that further consideration of the criteria

provided in their submissions is

unnecessary. Furthermore, the

description of the merchandise

contained in the relevant submissions

pertaining to this grade of beam does

not preclude this product from being

within the scope of the investigations.

Accordingly, we preliminarily

determine that the A913/65 beam does

not constitute a separate class or kind of

merchandise and, therefore, falls within

the scope as defined in the petition.

With respect to forklift mast profiles,

having considered the comments we

received from the interested parties and

the criteria enumerated in Diversified,

we find that the profiles in question,

being doubly-symmetric and having an

I-shape, fall within the scope of the

investigations. These profiles also meet

the other criteria included in the scope

language contained in the petition.

While the description by the interested

party requesting the exclusion indicates

some differences, such as in price,

between forklift mast profiles and

structural steel beams, these differences

are not sufficient to recognize forklift

mast profiles as a separate class or kind

of merchandise. However, given these

differences between forklift mast

profiles and structural steel beams, we

preliminarily determine that forklift

mast profiles should be separately

identified for model-matching purposes.

We also received a scope-exclusion

request by an interested party for

fabricated steel beams. This request was

subsequently withdrawn pursuant to an

agreement with the petitioners to clarify

the scope language by adding that

‘‘* * * beams that have additional

weldments, connectors or attachments

to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings are

outside the scope definition.’’ However,

‘‘* * * if the only additional weldment,

connector or attachment on the beam is

a shipping brace attached to maintain

stability during transportation, the beam

is not removed from the scope

definition by reason of such additional

weldment, connector or attachment.’’

Accordingly, we modified the scope

definition to account for this

clarification. See the ‘‘Scope’’ section

above.

We have addressed these scopeexclusion requests in detail in a

Memorandum to Louis Apple and

Laurie Parkhill, Directors, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group I, Offices 2 and 3,

respectively, from The Structural Steel

Beams Teams Re: Scope Exclusion

Requests, dated December 19, 2001.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

structural steel beams from Taiwan to

the United States were made at less than

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), we compared the

export price (‘‘EP’’) to the normal value

(‘‘NV’’), as described in the ‘‘Export

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of

this notice, below. In accordance with

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

compared POI weighted-average EPs to

weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced and sold by the respondents

in the home market during the POI that

fit the description in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section of this notice to

be foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared

U.S. sales to sales made in the home

market, where appropriate. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market made in the

ordinary course of trade to compare to

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to

sales of the most similar foreign like

product made in the ordinary course of

trade. In making the product

comparisons, we matched foreign like

products based on the physical

characteristics reported by the

respondents in the following order of

importance: form; shape/size (section

depth); strength/grade; and coating. We

also excluded from our comparisons

home market sales of structural steel

beams manufactured by other producers

in accordance with 771(16) of the Act.

With respect to home market sales of

non-prime merchandise made by Tung

Ho during the POI, in accordance with

our past practice, we excluded these

sales from our preliminary analysis

based on the limited quantity of such

sales in the home market and the fact

that no such sales were made to the

United States during the POI. (See, e.g.,

Final Determinations of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Korea,

58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993).)

Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, we calculated EP for those sales

where the merchandise was sold to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation by the

exporter or producer outside the United

States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser

for exportation to the United States,

based on the facts of record. In this case,

all sales to the U.S. were EP sales.

For both respondents, we based EP on

the packed FOB price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions for movement

expenses in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included,

where appropriate, foreign inland

freight expenses (freight from the plant

to the port of exportation) and foreign

brokerage and handling.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

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., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is equal to or

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales), we compared

Kuei Yi’s and Tung Ho’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)(C) of the Act.

Because both respondents’ aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of their aggregate volume of

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market

was viable for Kuei Yi and Tung Ho.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and

Arm’s-Length Test

The Department’s standard practice

with respect to the use of home market

sales to affiliated parties for NV is to

determine whether such sales are at

arm’s-length prices. Therefore, in

accordance with that practice, we

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67205

1The marketing process in the United States and

comparison markets begins with the producer and

extends to the sale to the final user or consumer.

The chain of distribution between the two may have

many or few links, and the respondents’ sales occur

somewhere along this chain. In performing this

evaluation, we considered the narrative responses

of each respondent to properly determine where in

the chain of distribution the sale appears to occur.

2Selling functions associated with a particular

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s)

of trade in a particular market. For purposes of this

preliminary determination, we have organized the

common structural steel beams selling functions

into four major categories: sales process and

marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory

and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty

services.

3Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we

derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV,

where possible.

performed an arm’s-length test on Kuei

Yi’s and Tung Ho’s sales to affiliates as

follows.

Sales to affiliated customers in the

home market not made at arm’s-length

prices (if any) were excluded from our

analysis because we considered them to

be outside the ordinary course of trade.

See 19 CFR 351.102. To test whether

these sales were made at arm’s-length

prices, we compared, on a modelspecific basis, the starting prices of sales

to affiliated and unaffiliated customers

net of all movement charges, direct

selling expenses, and packing expenses.

Where, for the tested models of subject

merchandise, prices to the affiliated

party were on average 99.5 percent or

more of the price to the unaffiliated

parties, we determined that sales made

to the affiliated party were at arm’s

length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). In

instances where no price ratio could be

constructed for an affiliated customer

because identical merchandise was not

sold to unaffiliated customers, we were

unable to determine that these sales

were made at arm’s-length prices and,

therefore, excluded them from our LTFV

analysis. See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077

(July 9, 1993).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.403(d), where Kuei Yi’s sales to its

affiliates failed the arm’s-length test, we

used the sales made by the affiliates to

unaffiliated customers in our analysis.

For further discussion, see the

Preliminary Determination Calculation

Memorandum dated December 19, 2001

(Calculation Memo).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

Based on our analysis of an allegation

contained in the petition, we found that

there were reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales of structural

steel beams in the home market were

made at prices below their cost of

production (‘‘COP’’). Accordingly,

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we

initiated a country-wide sales-belowcost investigation to determine whether

sales were made at prices below their

respective COP (see Initiation Notice, 66

FR at 33048, 33051).

1. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP for each

respondent based on the sum of the cost

of materials and fabrication for the

foreign like product, plus an amount for

general and administrative expenses

(‘‘G&A’’), interest expenses, and home

market packing costs (see ‘‘Test of Home

Market Sales Prices’’ section below for

treatment of home market selling

expenses). We relied on the COP data

submitted by Kuei Yi and Tung Ho,

except as noted below.

We revised Kuei Yi’s interest expense

ratio to include interest expenses

associated with loans covering asset

losses incurred during the POI. See

Calculation Memo for further details of

these calculations.

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales

of the foreign like product, as required

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

to determine whether the sale prices

were below the COP. The prices were

exclusive of any applicable movement

charges, rebates, discounts, and direct

and indirect selling expenses. In

determining whether to disregard home

market sales made at prices less than

their COP, we examined, in accordance

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

Act, whether such sales were made (1)

within an extended period of time, in

substantial quantities, and (2) at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

3. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

during the POI are at prices less than the

COP, we do not disregard any belowcost sales of that product, because we

determine that in such instances the

below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product during the POI are at

prices less than the COP, we determine

that in such instances the below-cost

sales represent ‘‘substantial quantities’’

within an extended period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of

the Act. In such cases, we also

determine whether the below-cost 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)(1)(B) of the Act.

We found that, for certain specific

products, more than 20 percent of Kuei

Yi’s and Tung Ho’s home market sales

were at prices less than the COP and, in

addition, such sales did not provide for

the recovery of costs within a reasonable

period of time. We therefore excluded

these sales and used the remaining sales

as the basis for determining NV, in

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the

Act.

E. Level of Trade

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act

states that, to the extent practicable, the

Department will calculate NV based on

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’)

as the EP or constructed export price

(‘‘CEP’’). Sales are made at different

LOTs if they are made at different

marketing stages (or their equivalent).

See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial

differences in selling activities are a

necessary, but not sufficient, condition

for determining that there is a difference

in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November

19, 1997). In order to determine whether

the comparison sales were at different

stages in the marketing process than the

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain

of distribution’’),1 including selling

functions 2, class of customer

(‘‘customer category’’), and the level of

selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for

EP and comparison market sales (i.e.,

NV based on either home market or

third country prices 3), we consider the

starting prices before any adjustments.

For CEP sales, we consider only the

selling activities reflected in the price

after the deduction of expenses and

profit under section 772(d) of the Act.

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United

States, Court Nos. 00–1058,–1060 (Fed.

Cir. March 7, 2001).

When the Department is unable to

find sales of the foreign like product in

the comparison market at the same LOT

as the EP or CEP, the Department may

compare the U.S. sale to sales at a

different LOT in the comparison market.

In comparing EP or CEP sales at a

different LOT in the comparison market,

where available data make it

67206 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

practicable, we make a LOT adjustment

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

Finally, for CEP sales only, if a NV LOT

is more remote from the factory than the

CEP LOT and there is no basis for

determining whether the difference in

LOTs between NV and CEP affected

price comparability (i.e. no LOT

adjustment was practicable), the

Department shall grant a CEP offset, as

provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) 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).

We obtained information from Kuei

Yi and Tung Ho regarding the marketing

stages involved in making the reported

home market and U.S. sales, including

a description of the selling activities

performed by Kuei Yi and Tung Ho for

each channel of distribution. Companyspecific LOT findings are summarized

below.

Kuei Yi

Kuei Yi reported sales in the home

market through two channels of

distribution: (1) Fabricators and endusers and (2) stockists. We examined the

chain of distribution and the selling

activities associated with home market

sales through these channels of

distribution, and determined that there

was little difference in the relevant

selling functions provided by Kuei Yi.

Specifically, Kuei Yi does not provide

inventory maintenance, advertising, or

sales support for any of its home market

customers. Kuei Yi does incur a high

degree of sales activity related to

transportation and warranty. Kuei Yi

did not indicate that there are any

differences with respect to freight and

delivery between these channels of

distribution or customer categories.

Similarly, the sales warranty support

provided by Kuei Yi does not vary by

channel of distribution or customer

category. Based on our overall analysis,

we found that the channels of

distribution did not differ significantly

from each other with respect to selling

activities and, therefore, constituted one

LOT.

In the U.S. market, Kuei Yi made only

EP sales through one channel of

distribution: sales to traders shipped

directly to the United States. Kuei Yi

incurs freight costs in delivering the

product to the port as well as brokerage

and handling charges. Kuei Yi also

provides warranty services in the U.S.

market. Similar to the home market

LOT, Kuei Yi does not provide

inventory maintenance, advertising, or

sales support in selling to its U.S.

customers. Accordingly, there is only

one LOT for U.S. sales.

We compared the EP LOT to the home

market LOT and concluded that the

selling functions performed for home

market customers in this home market

LOT are sufficiently similar to those

performed for U.S. customers because

the same services are offered in both

markets. Accordingly, we consider the

EP and home market LOTs to be the

same. Consequently, we are comparing

EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the

home market.

Tung Ho

Tung Ho reported sales in the home

market through two channels of

distribution: (1) Unaffiliated distributors

and (2) affiliated and unaffiliated endusers. Tung Ho sold the subject

merchandise both out of inventory and

on a made-to-order basis to both

distributors and end-users. We

examined the chain of distribution and

the selling activities associated with

home market sales through these

channels of distribution, and

determined that there was little

difference in the relevant selling

functions provided by Tung Ho.

Specifically, Tung Ho provided rebates

and warranties to distributors, but not to

end-users. Tung Ho did not indicate that

there are any differences with respect to

freight and delivery or inventory

maintenance services between these

channels of distribution or customer

categories. As we do not consider the

existence of rebates and warranties on

sales to distributors sufficient to warrant

finding a separate channel of

distribution for sales to distributors, we

find that the home market channels of

distribution do not differ significantly

from each other with respect to selling

activities and, therefore, constitute one

LOT.

In the U.S. market, Tung Ho made

only EP sales through one channel of

distribution: sales to distributors

shipped directly to the United States.

Tung Ho incurs freight costs in

delivering the product to the port as

well as brokerage and handling charges.

Tung Ho provided no rebates or

warranty services in the U.S. market,

nor did it provide inventory

maintenance, advertising, or sales

support in selling to its U.S. customers.

Accordingly, there is only one LOT for

U.S. sales.

We compared the EP LOT to the home

market LOT and concluded that the

selling functions performed for home

market customers are sufficiently

similar to those performed for U.S.

customers to warrant considering them

the same LOT. Consequently, we are

comparing EP sales to sales at the same

LOT in the home market.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Comparison Market Prices

Kuei Yi

We calculated NV based on delivered

or ex-works prices to unaffiliated

customers or prices to affiliated

customers that we determined to be at

arm’s-length. We made deductions,

where appropriate, from the starting

price for rebates. We also made

deductions for movement expenses,

including inland freight, under section

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition,

we made adjustments under section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.410 for differences in circumstances

of sale for imputed credit expenses and

warranties.

Tung Ho

We calculated NV based on delivered

or ex-factory prices to unaffiliated

customers or prices to affiliated

customers that we determined to be at

arm’s-length. We added to the starting

price interest revenue, where

appropriate. We made deductions,

where appropriate, from the starting

price for billing adjustments and

rebates. We also made deductions for

inland freight, under section

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition,

we made adjustments under section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.410 for differences in circumstances

of sale for imputed credit expenses,

bank charges, and warranties. For those

sales for which Tung Ho did not report

a date of payment, we have used the

signature date of the preliminary

determination (i.e., December 19, 2001)

in the calculation of imputed credit

expenses.

Furthermore, for both respondents we

made adjustments for differences in

costs attributable to differences in the

physical characteristics of the

merchandise in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.411. We also deducted home market

packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars in accordance with section

773A(a) of the Act based on the

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information relied

upon in making our final determination.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67207

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise 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 Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart

below. These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average margin

percentage

Kuei Yi Industrial Co., Ltd. ... 18.01

Tung Ho Steel Enterprise

Corporation ....................... 4.70

All Others .............................. 13.95

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 threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Disclosure

We will disclose the calculations used

in our analysis to parties in this

proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR

351.224(b).

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted to the Department no later

than seven days after the date of the

final verification report issued in this

proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

five days from the deadline date for 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 public 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 an interested party. If a

request for a hearing is made in this

investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the 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 the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

We will make our final determination

no later than 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of

the Act.

Dated: December 19, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31986 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–469–811]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Structural Steel Beams From Spain

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than

Fair Value.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine

that structural steel beams from Spain

are not being, nor are likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair

value, as provided in section 733(b) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on this preliminary

determination. Since we are postponing

the final determination, we will make

our final determination not later than

135 days after the date of publication of

this preliminary determination in the

Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Gehr or Mike Strollo, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1779 or (202) 482–

0629, 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

(‘‘Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (April 2001).

Background

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Structural Steel

Beams From the People’s Republic of

China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,

Russia, South Africa, Spain, and

Taiwan, 66 FR 33048 (June 20, 2001))

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’), the following

events have occurred.

On July 9, 2001, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

structural steel beams from Spain are

materially injuring the United States

industry (see ITC Investigation Nos.

731-TA–935–942 (Publication No.

3438)).

On July 18, 2001, we selected the

largest producer/exporter of structural

steel beams from Spain as the

mandatory respondent in this

proceeding. For further discussion, see

Memorandum to Lou Apple, Director,

Office 2, from The Team Re: Respondent

Selection dated July 18, 2001. We

subsequently issued the antidumping

questionnaire to Aceralia Corporacion

Siderurgica, S.A. (Aceralia) on July18,

2001.

During the period August through

November 2001, the Department

received responses to sections A, B, C

and D of the Department’s original and

supplemental questionnaires from

Aceralia. On December 18, 2001, we

issued an additional supplemental

questionnaire to the respondent.

On September 25, 2001, pursuant to

19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners made

a timely request to postpone the

preliminary determination. We granted

this request on October 2, 2001, and

postponed the preliminary

determination until no later than

November 30, 2001. (See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary