[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11559-11562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-808]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
plate in coils from Belgium. The review covers exports of this 
merchandise to the United States for the period November 4, 1998 
through April 30, 2000, by ALZ, N.V. (ALZ), manufacturer and exporter 
of subject merchandise. The respondent ALZ withdrew, on a timely basis, 
its request for a review and also requested the return or destruction 
of its information from the record. In light of the petitioners' 
request to continue the review process, and ALZ's withdrawal of its 
information from the record, we are preliminarily determining that 
adverse facts available must be applied with respect to ALZ. For our 
analysis on this issue see the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum or Abdelali Elouaradia, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230 at (202) 482-0197 or (202) 482-1374, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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)

[[Page 11560]]

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

Background

    On May 21, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel plate in coils 
from Belgium (64 FR 27756). On May 31, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213, respondent ALZ and its affiliated U.S. importer TrefilARBED, 
Inc., and the petitioners, Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation 
(formerly Armco, Inc.), J&L Speciality Steel Inc., North American 
Stainless, Butler-Armco Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent 
Union, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC 
(collectively, petitioners), requested a review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium. On July 
7, 2000, we published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping Review.'' 
See 65 FR 41942. On August 14, September 5, and September 15, 2000, ALZ 
responded to sections A, B and D, then C, respectively, of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire. On October 5, 2000, ALZ 
submitted a timely request for withdrawal from the administrative 
review pursuant to section 351.213(d) of the Department's regulations, 
and requested the return or destruction of its questionnaire responses. 
On October 20, 2000, the petitioners stated their request to continue 
the administrative review, and objected to ALZ's request for the return 
or destruction of the information submitted in the course of the 
proceeding. In accordance with the Department's practice, we granted 
ALZ its request to remove its questionnaire responses from the 
Department's record. For a detailed discussion regarding the removal of 
questionnaire responses from the administrative record, see Memorandum 
to Barbara E. Tillman through Sally Gannon from Abdelali Elouaradia: 
Return or Destruction of ALZ, N.V. Questionnaire Response, December 19, 
2000. Given that petitioners also requested a review, we continued 
conducting this administrative review pursuant to section 751(a) of the 
Act.

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate 
in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 
percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or 
without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled 
products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in 
coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-
rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified 
dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope 
of these orders are the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate 
that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars. In addition, certain 
cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also excluded from the 
scope of these orders. The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel plate 
in coils is defined as that merchandise which meets the physical 
characteristics described above that has undergone a cold-reduction 
process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 percent or more, 
and has been annealed and pickled after this cold reduction process.
    The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable 
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at 
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 
7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 
7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.90.00.10, 
7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 
7220.11.00.00, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 
7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of the orders is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is November 4, 1998 through April 30, 
2000.

Verification

    We did not verify any information provided by respondents, as 
provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act. For further information 
please refer to the section on Application of Facts Available below.

Application of Facts Available

    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, if necessary 
information is not available on the record, or 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; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; 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. In this case, notwithstanding ALZ's timely withdrawal 
from the review, the Department is required to continue the review 
process because the petitioners did not withdraw their request for 
review. Consequently, ALZ's withdrawal of its participation in the 
review, and its request that the company's questionnaire responses be 
removed from the record, constitute a refusal to provide information 
necessary to conduct the Department's antidumping analysis, pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Moreover, ALZ's withdrawal 
significantly impedes the review process. See section 776(a)(2)(C) of 
the Act. Therefore, the Department must resort to facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination. Absent any response 
on the record from ALZ, sections 782(d) and (e) do not apply.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that, in selecting from 
among the facts otherwise available, the Department may use an 
inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information (see also the Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rp. No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2d 
Sess. 870). ALZ's timely withdrawal from the review and its request to 
return or destroy the company's initial questionnaire responses 
constitute a refusal to participate in the review, and demonstrate that 
ALZ failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with the Department's request for information. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined 
that an adverse inference is warranted with respect to ALZ.
    As adverse facts available, we have applied 16.0 percent, the 
highest margin alleged in the petition, which is based on a comparison 
between ALZ's U.S. price and constructed value (CV). See ``Import 
Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist'' (Initiation 
Checklist) and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless 
Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of South 
Africa, South Korea and Taiwan,

[[Page 11561]]

63 FR 20580 (April 27, 1998) for a discussion of the margin 
calculations in the petition. We note that, in making adverse 
inferences, the SAA authorizes the Department to consider the extent to 
which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation (SAA at 
870). Here, for purposes of our preliminary determination, we have 
carefully analyzed the rates contained in the petition and the rates in 
the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Given that the 16.0 
percent rate is the highest rate derived from the petition, and that 
ALZ's final calculated dumping margin from the LTFV investigation was 
9.86 percent, we find that the 16.0 percent rate will prevent ALZ from 
benefitting from its decision not to participate in this review. If 
parties wish to submit information which they view as more appropriate 
or relevant for use as adverse facts available, they should submit that 
information no later than 15 days after publication of this notice.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA 
defines secondary information as ``information derived from the 
petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final 
determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous 
review'' (see SAA at 870). In addition, the SAA clarifies that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value (see id.). The SAA 
also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, 
for example, published price lists, official import statistics and 
customs data, as well as information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation (see id.).
    In this case, to corroborate the margin calculations in the 
petition, we examined the basis of the price-to-CV rate of 16.0 
percent, contained in the petition of March 31, 1998. The U.S. prices 
in the petition were based on quotes to U.S. customers obtained through 
market research. The normal value was based on market research data, 
consumption data from multiple sources, and ALZ's financial statements.
    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we examined the key elements of the export price and 
normal value calculations on which the margins in the petitions were 
based. This information includes evidence such as customs statistics or 
market studies which are considered reliable because they are based on 
actual, independent trade data and analysis. We were able to 
corroborate the U.S. price in the petition by comparing these prices to 
publicly available information compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and 
made available by the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC 
reports quantity and value by HTS numbers. Export Prices which are 
based on U.S. import statistics are considered corroborated (see 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, 84 (January 4, 1999) 
(Comment 13) (CTL Plate from Mexico). Normal value calculations 
contained in the petition, similar to the U.S. price calculations, were 
based on both actual independent trade data and analysis, as well as 
ALZ's own public information. The Department is aware of no other 
independent sources of information that would enable us to further 
corroborate the petition's margin calculations.
    The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act, codified at 
19 CFR 351.308(c), states: ``(t)he fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from 
applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using the secondary 
information in question.'' Additionally, we note that the SAA at 870 
specifically states that where ``corroboration may not be practicable 
in a given circumstance,'' the Department may nevertheless apply an 
adverse inference. The SAA at 869 emphasizes that the Department need 
not prove that the facts available are the best alternative 
information. Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to 
corroborate information contained in the petition, and in accordance 
with section 776(c) of the Act which discusses facts available and 
corroboration, we consider the 16.0 percent margin in the petition to 
be corroborated to the extent practicable for purposes of this 
preliminary determination (see CTL Plate from Mexico, 64 FR at 84).
    Finally, we find that the petition information is relevant with 
respect to ALZ because, as discussed above, the normal value 
calculations were partially based on ALZ's publicly available data 
(Financial Statement), while the U.S. price is an actual price quote 
from ALZ. Thus, we conclude that the 16.0 percent, the highest rate 
from the petition, is not outdated, and is relevant with respect to 
ALZ. Moreover, we find that this rate is a reasonably accurate estimate 
of ALZ's actual rate from the LTFV investigation, with the built-in 
increase to prevent ALZ's non-compliance in the future. See De Cecco v. 
United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2000); and World 
Finer Foods v. United States, Consol. Court No. 99-03-00138, Slip Op. 
2000-72 (June 26, 2000).

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the 
antidumping margin for ALZ, based on total adverse facts available for 
the period November 4, 1998 through April 30, 2000, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALZ, N.V...................................................        16.00
All Others.................................................         9.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held 37 days after the date of publication or the first business day 
thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not 
later than 30 days after the date of publication. Given the fact that 
respondent in this proceeding withdrew its information, we invite 
petitioners to provide relevant public and probative information for 
use as adverse facts available. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 
raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the 
date of filing of case briefs. The Department intends to issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including its analysis of 
issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.
    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all 
shipments of stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in 
the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in these

[[Page 11562]]

reviews but covered in the original investigation of sales at LTFV or a 
previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this or a previous review, or the original 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer 
of the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 9.86 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (64 FR 15476, 
March 31, 1999).
    These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 USC 
1675(a)) and 19 CFR Secs. 351.213. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard 
T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration.

    Dated: January 31, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement II.
[FR Doc. 01-4664 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P