[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67207-67213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31987]


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

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

[[Page 67208]]

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

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 18, 2001, the 
petitioners requested that, in the event of a negative 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. 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because our preliminary 
determination is negative and no compelling reasons for denial exist, 
we are granting the petitioners' request and are postponing the final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation 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 
this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products 
are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this 
investigation: (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 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.

[[Page 67209]]

    We have addressed these scope-exclusion 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 Spain to 
the United States were made at less than fair value (``LTFV''), we 
compared the export price (``EP'') or constructed export price 
(``CEP'') to the normal value (``NV''), as described in the ``Export 
Price,'' ``Constructed 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 and CEPs to weighted-average 
NVs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by the respondent 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 respondent in the following order of importance: form; shape/size 
(section depth); strength/grade; and coating.
    With respect to home market sales of non-prime merchandise made by 
Aceralia 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-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 
(July 9, 1993).) In addition, we excluded from our preliminary analysis 
all home market sales between Aceralia's mills because these sales were 
made for internal consumption. (For further discussion, see Memorandum 
to the file from Jennifer Gehr Re: Calculations Performed for Aceralia 
Corporacion Siderurgica, S.A. (Aceralia) for the Preliminary 
Determination in the Less Than Fair Value Investigation on Structural 
Steel Beams from Spain dated December 19, 2001 (``Sales Calculation 
Memorandum'').)

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. We based EP on the packed 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 and foreign 
brokerage and handling.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
those sales where the merchandise was sold (or agreed to be sold) in 
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer 
or exporter.
    We based CEP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for price-billing 
errors. We made deductions for rebates, where applicable. We also made 
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties (including 
harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. inland 
freight expenses (freight from port to warehouse) and U.S. storage 
expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (i.e., imputed credit costs) and indirect selling expenses.
    Aceralia did not report rebates on certain sales made during the 
POI. Because the terms of the rebate agreement provide for the payment 
of rebates on these sales, we based the per-unit rebate expense for 
them on the amount reported for other sales to the same customers. In 
addition, Aceralia reported rebates, as well as certain movement 
expenses, on a theoretical-weight basis. We adjusted these expenses to 
state them on an actual-weight basis. (See the Sales Calculation 
Memorandum.)
    For those U.S. sales which Aceralia 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. In addition, we restated the respondent's U.S. 
interest rate on a 365-day basis (rather than a 360-day basis as 
reported). (See the Sales Calculation Memorandum.)
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Aceralia and its affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like 
product in the home market and the profit associated with those sales.

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 the respondent'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 the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home market was viable for the respondent.

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 made at arm's-length prices. Therefore, in accordance with 
that practice, we

[[Page 67210]]

performed an arm's-length test on Aceralia's sales to affiliates as 
follows.
    To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we 
compared, on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested models of 
the foreign like product, 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. Where, for the tested models of the foreign like product, 
prices to the affiliated party were on average lower than 99.5 percent 
of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made 
to the affiliated party were not at arm's length. See 19 CFR 
351.403(c). 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 the respondent's sales 
to its affiliates constituted at least five percent of the total home 
market sales, and these sales failed the arm's-length test, our normal 
practice would be to use sales made by the affiliates to unaffiliated 
customers in our analysis. In this case, however, we were unable to do 
so because Aceralia either: (1) Was unable to provide this information; 
(2) failed to provide it in response to a specific request; or (3) 
reported information that was so incomplete that it could not be used 
for the preliminary determination. Consequently, we disregarded the 
first category of sales (i.e., those for which Aceralia was unable to 
provide the downstream information) and, we included the latter two 
categories in our analysis using adverse facts available.
    Regarding the first scenario, Aceralia was unable to report 
downstream sales data for one customer group that became unaffiliated 
during the POI. In its November 9, 2001, supplemental questionnaire 
response, Aceralia demonstrated that: (1) it made numerous attempts to 
obtain the information from this customer after it became unaffiliated; 
and (2) the customer refused to provide the relevant data. Based on 
this information, we have accepted Aceralia's claim, for purposes of 
the preliminary determination that, even acting to the best of its 
ability, it could not provide the requested information. For the 
preliminary determination, we have excluded sales to this customer 
group from our analysis, because we found that they were not made at 
arm's-length. For further discussion, see the Sales Calculation 
Memorandum.
    Regarding the latter two scenarios, Aceralia did not report 
necessary information requested by the Department in its supplemental 
questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an 
interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has 
been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding 
under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information 
cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the 
administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, 
use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.\1\ Section 776(b) of the Act further 
provides that adverse inferences may be used when a party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Where the Department determines that a response to a request 
for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of 
the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party 
submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide 
that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If 
the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time 
limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, 
disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as 
appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department 
``shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an 
interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not 
meet all the applicable requirements established by the 
administering authority'' if the information is timely, can be 
verified, and is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if 
the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing 
the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute 
requires the Department to use the information, if it can do so 
without undue difficulties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, we find that Aceralia withheld downstream information 
requested by the Department for certain sales and failed to provide 
complete and usable information on others. Because: (1) We informed 
Aceralia of the deficiency in its data and provided it an opportunity 
to remedy it in a supplemental questionnaire (pursuant to section 
782(d) of the Act); and (2) Aceralia did not provide the information 
requested or provide information that was so incomplete that it could 
not be used (within the meaning of section 782(e) of the Act), we 
resorted to facts otherwise available. Further, the data that Aceralia 
claimed it was unable to provide for these transactions was provided 
for numerous other transactions. Aceralia did not indicate or explain 
why it was not possible to provide this information for the 
transactions in question. Therefore, we conclude that Aceralia could 
have provided the necessary data but chose not to, thereby failing to 
cooperate to the best of its ability within the meaning of section 
776(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we adjusted the prices charged by 
Aceralia to the affiliated customers in question using adverse facts 
available. Specifically, we increased the prices charged to these 
customers by the largest customer-specific ratio calculated in the 
arm's length test (i.e., the largest average price difference between 
the prices charged to any affiliated customer and unaffiliated 
customers). For further discussion of our application of facts 
available for the preliminary determination, see the Sales Calculation 
Memorandum.
    On December 18, 2001, we issued an additional supplemental 
questionnaire to Aceralia on this topic. We intend to verify Aceralia's 
response to this questionnaire and will consider this information, as 
appropriate, for purposes of the final determination.

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-below-cost 
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 
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 Aceralia, except as noted below.
    1. We revised the G&A rate to include net foreign exchange losses 
on accounts payable for the Gijon plant. In addition, we excluded 
packing expenses from the cost of goods sold denominator of the four 
individual plant rate calculations.

[[Page 67211]]

    2. We revised the denominator in the consolidated financial expense 
rate calculation to include only those offsets for interest income 
related to allowable short-term interest bearing items. We recalculated 
the denominator to be based on cost of goods sold rather than raw 
materials and also to exclude packing expenses.
    3. We weight-averaged the revised COP/CV files for the four plants.
    See Memorandum from Gina K. Lee to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office 
of Accounting, dated December 19, 2001, Re: Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for Preliminary Determination 
(``Cost Calculation Memorandum'').
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average 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. Regarding home market movement charges, 
without explanation, Aceralia did not report certain extra freight 
charges on sales to the Canary Islands, despite our request that it do 
so.
    See Aceralia's November 8, 2001, submission at pages 15 and 16. As 
adverse facts available, we increased the freight expenses on these 
sales by the largest additional charge shown on Aceralia's agreement 
with its freight provider. (See the Sales Calculation Memorandum.)
    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 below-cost 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 disregard those sales of that product, because 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 such sales were made at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Aceralia'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, if any, as the basis for determining NV, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. 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 CEP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 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-to-Length 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''),\2\ including selling 
functions,\3\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 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 respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to 
occur.
    \3\ Selling 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, where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \4\), 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Where 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 Aceralia regarding the marketing 
stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, 
including a description of the selling activities performed by the 
respondent for each channel of distribution. Because Aceralia claimed 
business proprietary treatment for this information, we are unable to 
discuss it here. For a description of these selling functions, see the 
Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    Aceralia reported home market sales through one channel of 
distribution: direct sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated 
distributors. As noted in the ``Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's 
Length Test'' section of this notice, we based our preliminary analysis 
on Aceralia's direct sales (without considering any downstream 
information). In making our level of trade determination for these 
sales in the home market, we relied upon the information submitted in 
Aceralia's section A and supplemental section A responses. Based on our 
analysis of this business proprietary information, we find that only 
one level of trade exists

[[Page 67212]]

in the home market. See the Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    In the U.S. market, Aceralia reported both EP and CEP sales. In its 
section A response, Aceralia stated that it made EP sales to the United 
States through Aristrain Hispano Trade Handelsgesellschaft (``AHT''), 
an affiliated trading company, for which the distribution process was 
analogous to Aceralia's CEP sales through TradeARBED, Inc. 
(``TradeARBED''). Because Aceralia did not report information on the 
selling functions performed by it in connection with AHT's sales to the 
first unaffiliated customer, we have insufficient information on the 
record to make a determination on the EP LOT. Nonetheless, given that 
we have only one LOT in the home market, it is not possible to make a 
LOT adjustment for EP sales. We have requested additional information 
on the selling functions/services provided to AHT and by AHT to its 
ultimate customer; we will re-examine this issue for purposes of the 
final determination in the event that we find multiple levels of trade 
in the home market at that time.
    Regarding CEP sales, the relevant transaction for U.S. sales, after 
CEP adjustments are made, is between Aceralia and its affiliated 
distributor, TradeARBED. Based on the differences in the number and 
degree to which selling functions are performed in each market, we 
found the CEP LOT to be different from the home market LOT and to be at 
a less advanced stage of distribution than the home market LOT. 
(Because Aceralia claimed business proprietary treatment for this 
information, we are unable to discuss our analysis here. See the Sales 
Calculation Memorandum.) Consequently, we could not match to sales at 
the same LOT in the home market, nor could we determine a LOT 
adjustment based on Aceralia's home market sales. Furthermore, we have 
no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining 
a LOT adjustment.
    Based on the selling functions provided by Aceralia for its sales 
to the United States, after CEP adjustments are made, we find that 
these sales are at a marketing stage which is less advanced than for 
Aceralia's home market sales. In addition, the data available do not 
permit us to determine the extent to which this difference in LOT 
affects price comparability. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.412(f), we are granting Aceralia a CEP offset.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers, affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's-
length, or certain affiliated customers not determined to be at arm's-
length (adjusted as noted in the ``Affiliated Party Transactions and 
Arm's Length Test'' section, above). We made deductions, where 
appropriate, from the starting price for billing adjustments, discounts 
and rebates. We also made deductions for movement expenses, including 
inland freight, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We increased 
freight expenses to the Canary Islands, as noted in the ``Test of Home 
Market Sales Prices'' section, above.
    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 
commissions. Because Aceralia reported commissions on a theoretical-
weight basis, we restated these expenses to an actual-weight basis. In 
addition, we recalculated the commission expenses associated with 
certain sales in order to assign these expenses to the transactions on 
which they were incurred. Finally, we disallowed an adjustment for 
imputed credit expenses because Aceralia's payment data contained 
numerous inconsistencies. (See the Sales Calculation Memorandum.)
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset the commission 
incurred in the U.S. market with the indirect selling expenses incurred 
in the home market by the lesser of the commission or the indirect 
selling expenses. We reclassified technical service expense incurred in 
the home market as indirect selling expenses because they are not 
directly associated with individual sales. In addition, we recalculated 
these expenses as a single percentage of gross unit price because 
Aceralia did not explain how the expenses differed by mill. (See the 
Sales Calculation Memorandum.)
    Furthermore, 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. Finally, for comparisons to CEP sales, we made a CEP offset 
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We 
calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of the indirect selling 
expenses on the comparison-market sales or the indirect selling 
expenses deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP.

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.

Suspension of Liquidation

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Exporter/manufacturer                   average margin
                                                            Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica, S.A...................            1.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the 
examined company is de minimis, we are not directing the Customs 
Service to suspend liquidation of entries of structural steel beams 
from Spain.

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, 
pursuant to section 735(b)(3) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 
75 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

[[Page 67213]]

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. 01-31987 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P