Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11259

new shipper review of certain forged

stainless steel flanges from India (65 FR

55942, September 15, 2000). We invited

parties to comment on our preliminary

results of review. We received no

comments.

Bhansali submitted a change in its

data on November 4, 2000, but this

change had no effect on our analysis. On

December 5, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

extension of the deadline for the final

results of review (65 FR 75924). The

Department has now completed the new

shipper review in accordance with

section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The products under review are certain

forged stainless steel flanges (hereafter,

‘‘flanges’’) from India, both finished and

not finished, generally manufactured to

specification ASTM A–182, and made

in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and

316L. The scope includes five general

types of flanges. They are weld neck,

used for butt-weld line connection;

threaded, used for threaded line

connections; slip-on and lap joint, used

with stub-ends/butt-weld line

connections; socket weld, used to fit

pipe into a machined recession; and

blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes

of the flanges within the scope range

generally from one to six inches;

however, all sizes of the abovedescribed merchandise are included in

the scope. Specifically excluded from

the scope of this order are cast stainless

steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges

generally are manufactured to

specification ASTM A–351. The flanges

subject to this order are currently

classifiable under subheadings

7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the

HTSUS. Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written

description of the merchandise under

review is dispositive of whether or not

the merchandise is covered by the

review.

Verification

On December 7, 2000 the Department

conducted a verification of the

antidumping responses submitted by

Bhansali Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. See

memorandum to the file from Thomas

Killiam, ‘‘Sales Verification of Bhansali

Ferromet Pvt. LtD.–Stainless Steel

Flanges from India,’’ December 20,

2000. No changes in the data or analysis

were indicated as a result of the

verification.

Final Results of the Review

No changes to our analysis in the

preliminary results are warranted for

purposes of these final results.

Accordingly, the weighted-average

dumping margin for Bhansali for the

period August 1, 1998 through July 31,

1999, is as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Bhansali Ferromet Pvt. LtD 4.08

Cash Deposit Requirements

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries, on a per kilogram basis. The

Department will issue appropriate

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service. Furthermore, the following

cash deposit requirements will be

effective for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of these final

results of administrative review, as

provided by section 751(a) of the Act:

(1) For Bhansali, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate listed above, (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in a previous segment of

this proceeding, the cash deposit rate

will continue to be the companyspecific rate published in the most

recent final results in which that

manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered

in this review or in any previous

segment of this proceeding, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in

these final results of review or in the

most recent segment of the proceeding

in which that manufacturer

participated; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this review or in any

previous segment of this proceeding, the

cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent,

the all others rate established in the

less-than-fair-value investigation. These

deposit requirements shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant 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 in the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination in accordance with

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

Act, and 19 CFR 351.214.

Dated: January 31, 2001.

Timothy J. Hauser,

Acting Under Secretary for International

Trade.

[FR Doc. 01–4538 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–601]

Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel

Cooking Ware From Korea: Preliminary

Results and Rescission, in Part, of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and rescission, in part, of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

Stainless Steel Cookware Committee

(the Committee), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on top-ofthe-stove stainless steel cooking ware

from Korea. The period of review (POR)

is January 1, 1999, through December

31, 1999.

We preliminarily determine that

certain manufacturers/exporters sold

subject merchandise at less than normal

value (NV) during the POR. If these

preliminary results are adopted in the

final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct Customs to

assess antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. We invite interested

parties to comment on the preliminary

results. Parties who submit comments in

this proceeding should also submit with

the argument: (1) a statement of the

11260 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

1Same company as Han I1 Stainless Steel Ind.

Co., Ltd. listed above.

issue(s), and (2) a brief summary of the

argument (not to exceed five pages).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nova Daly (Dong Won) and John Conniff

(Daelim), AD/CVD Enforcement, Office

4, Group II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482–0989

and (202) 482–1009, 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 (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351

(2000).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on top-of-thestove stainless steel cooking ware

(cookware) from Korea on January 20,

1987 (52 FR 2139). On January 13, 2000,

the Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on cookware

from Korea (65 FR 2114) covering the

period January 1, 1999, through

December 31, 1999.

On January 31, 2000, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Committee

(the petitioner), whose members are

Regal Ware, Inc., All-Clad Metalcrafters,

LLC, and Vita-Craft Corporation,

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of twenty-seven

specific manufacturers/exporters of

cookware from Korea: Daelim Trading

Co., Ltd. (Daelim), Dong Won Metal Co.,

Ltd. (Dong Won), Chefline Corporation

(Chefline), Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd.

(Samyeung), Namyang Kitchenflower

Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial Co.,

Ltd., Ssang Yong Ind. Co., Ltd.

(Ssangyong), O. Bok Stainless Steel Co.,

Ltd., Dong Hwa Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.,

Il Shin Co., Ltd., Hai Dong Stainless

Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Han Il Stainless

Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Bae Chin Metal Ind.

Co., East One Co., Ltd., Charming Art

Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd.,

Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd., Wonkwang Inc.,

Sungjin International Inc., Sae Kwang

Aluminum Co., Ltd., Woosung Co., Ltd.,

(Woosung), Hanil Stainless Steel Ind.

Co., Ltd.,1 Seshin Co., Ltd., Pionix

Corporation, East West Trading Korea,

Ltd., Clad Co., Ltd., and B.Y. Enterprise,

Ltd. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.221(b), we published a notice of

initiation of the review on February 28,

2000 (65 FR 10466).

On March 3, 2000, we issued Section

A antidumping questionnaires to each

of the twenty-seven manufacturers/

exporters listed above. In response to

our request for information, Sugjin

International, Inc., O. Bok Stainless

Steel Co., Ltd., Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd.,

Hai Dong Stainless Co., Ltd., Pionix

Corporation, Seshin Co., Ltd., Dong Hwa

Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Wonkwang

Inc., and Charming Art Co., Ltd.,

reported that they had no sales or

shipments during the POR. Our review

of Customs import data indicated that

there were no entries of subject

merchandise made by these

manufacturers/exporters during the

POR. Accordingly, we are preliminarily

rescinding the review with respect to

the above nine manufacturers/exporters

of cookware.

The following companies failed to

respond to the Department’s Section A

questionnaire: B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd.,

Clad Co., Ltd., Sae Kwang Aluminum

Co., Ltd., East One Co., Ltd., East West

Trading Korea, Ltd., Bae Chin Metal Ind.

Co., Han I1 Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd.,

I1 Shin Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial

Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd., and

Namyang Kitchen Flower Co., Ltd. On

March 28, 2000, we informed each of

these companies that because they

failed to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire, we may use facts

available (FA) to determine their

dumping margins.

On March 17, 2000, counsel for

Chefline requested that the Department

rescind the review with respect to

Woosung. Woosung is Chefline’s

original corporate name which was

changed to Chefline in March 1996.

Since Chefline submitted uncontested

evidence on the record to support their

claim and petitioner did not object to

Chefline’s request for rescission, we are

rescinding the review with respect to

Woosung. In addition, on April 3, 2000,

Chefline informed the Department that

it would not be responding to the

Department’s Section A questionnaire.

On April 3, 2000, Daelim, Dong Won,

Samyeung, and Ssangyong responded to

Section A of the antidumping

questionnaire. On June 29, 2000, the

Department issued Sections B, C and D

of the Department’s questionnaire to

these four companies. Daelim, Dong

Won, and Samyeung filed responses to

Sections B and C on August 23, 2000.

On August 23, 2000, Ssangyong notified

the Department that it would no longer

participate in this review.

On August 24, 2000, the Department

issued Section A supplemental

questionnaires to Daelim, Dong Won,

and Samyeung. The responses to these

supplemental questionnaires were

received on September 15, 2000. We

issued Section B and C supplemental

questionnaires to these companies on

September 11, 2000. The responses to

the supplemental questionnaires were

submitted by the companies on October

2, 2000.

On September 20, 2000, the

Department initiated a cost of

production (COP) investigation with

respect to Dong Won and Samyeung and

requested that they respond to Section

D of the Department’s questionnaire. On

September 25, 2000, the Department

initiated a COP investigation with

respect to Daelim and issued the Section

D questionnaire, in accordance with

section 773(b) of the Act. We initiated

the COP investigations as a result of the

petitioner’s COP allegations, which are

company-specific, employ a reasonable

methodology, provide evidence of

below cost sales, and include models

which are representative of the broader

range of cookware products sold by

Dong Won, Samyeung, and Daelim in

accordance with section 773(b) of the

Act. For further discussion on the

initiation of the COP investigations, see

1999 Administrative Review of

Antidumping Duty Order on Top-OfThe-Stove Stainless Steel Cook Ware

(‘‘cookware’’) from Korea: Analysis of

Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below

the Cost of Production for Samyeung

Ind. Co., Ltd. (Samyeung) dated

September 20, 2000 and 1999

Administrative Review of Antidumping

Duty Order on Top-Of-The-Stove

Stainless Steel Cook Ware (‘‘cookware’’)

from Korea: Analysis of Petitioner’s

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of

Production for Dong Won Metal Co.,

Ltd. (Dong Won) dated September 20,

2000. Also, see 1999 Administrative

Review of Antidumping Duty Order on

Top-Of-The-Stove Stainless Steel Cook

Ware (cookware) from Korea: Analysis

of Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below

the Cost of Production for Dae-Lim Co.,

Ltd. (Daelim) dated September 25, 2000.

Dong Won’s response to the Section D

questionnaire was received by the

Department on October 18, 2000. On

October 25, 2000, Samyeung notified

the Department that it would no longer

participate in this review. On November

1, 2000, the Department issued a

Section D supplemental questionnaire

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11261

to Dong Won. The response to this

supplemental questionnaire was

received on November 21, 2000.

Daelim’s response to this section of

the questionnaire was received on

October 31, 2000. On November 26,

2000, the Department issued a Section

D supplemental questionnaire to

Daelim. The response to this

supplemental questionnaire was

received on November 30, 2000.

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

the Department may extend the

deadline for issuing a preliminary

determination in an administrative

review if it determines that it is not

practicable to complete the preliminary

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On August 15, 2000, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case to

January 30, 2001. See Top-of-the-Stove

Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From

Korea: Extension of Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 65 FR 51797 (August 25, 2000).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

antidumping order is top-of-the-stove

stainless steel cookware from Korea.

The subject merchandise is all nonelectric cooking ware of stainless steel

which may have one or more layers of

aluminum, copper or carbon steel for

more even heat distribution. The subject

merchandise includes skillets, frying

pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double

boilers, stock pots, dutch ovens,

casseroles, steamers, and other stainless

steel vessels, all for cooking on stove top

burners, except tea kettles and fish

poachers. Excluded from the scope of

the order are stainless steel oven ware

and stainless steel kitchen ware. The

subject merchandise is currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

7323.93.00 and 9604.00.00. The HTS

item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes

only. The written description remains

dispositive.

The Department has issued several

scope clarifications for this order. The

Department found that certain stainless

steel pasta and steamer inserts (63 FR

41545, August 4, 1998), certain stainless

steel eight-cup coffee percolators (58 FR

11209, February 24, 1993), and certain

stainless steel stock pots and covers are

within the scope of the order (57 FR

57420, December 4, 1992). Moreover, as

a result of a changed circumstances

review, the Department revoked the

order on Korea in part with respect to

certain stainless steel camping ware (1)

made of single-ply stainless steel having

a thickness no greater than 6.0

millimeters; and (2) consisting of 1.0,

1.5, and 2.0 quart saucepans without

handles and with lids that also serve as

fry pans (62 FR 3662, January 24, 1997).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, from December 4, 2000, to

December 22, 2000, we verified sales

and cost information provided by

Daelim and Dong Won, using standard

verification procedures, including an

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

version of the verification report and are

on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU) located in room B–099 of the

main Department of Commerce

Building, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

Facts Available (FA)

Application of FA

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that if any interested party: (A)

Withholds information that has been

requested by the Department; (B) fails to

provide such information by the

deadlines for submission of the

information or in the form or manner

requested; (C) significantly impedes an

antidumping investigation; or (D)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the

Department shall, subject to section

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise

available in making its determination.

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that

the Department shall not decline to

consider information deemed

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) of the

Act if: (1) The information is submitted

by the deadline established for its

submission; (2) the information can be

verified; (3) the information is not so

incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination; (4) the interested party

has demonstrated that it acted to the

best of its ability in providing the

information and meeting the

requirements established by the

Department with respect to the

information; and (5) the information can

be used without undue difficulties.

As stated above, on March 3, 2000, we

issued Section A questionnaires to

twenty-seven manufacturers/exporters

of the subject merchandise. The

following companies failed to respond

to the Department’s Section A

questionnaire: B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd.,

Clad Co., Ltd., Sae Kwang Aluminum

Co., Ltd., East One Co., Ltd., East West

Trading Korea, Ltd., Bae Chin Metal Ind.

Co., Han Il Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd.,

Il Shin Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial

Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd., and

Namyang Kitchen Flower Co., Ltd. On

March 28, 2000, we informed each of

these companies that because they

failed to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire, we may use FA to

determine their dumping margins. On

April 3, 2000, Chefline informed the

Department that it would not be

responding to the Department’s Section

A questionnaire. Because these

companies wholly failed to respond to

our questionnaire, pursuant to section

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we have applied

FA to calculate their dumping margins.

Further, based on the facts in this

review, described below, the

Department has preliminarily

determined that the use of FA is

warranted for Ssangyong and

Samyeung.

First, Ssangyong and Samyeung did

not respond to Sections B and C of the

questionnaire. On April 3, 2000,

Ssangyong responded to the Section A

questionnaire. On June 29, the

Department issued Sections B and C of

the questionnaire to Ssangyong. On July

18, 2000, Ssangyong requested an

extension to respond to Sections B and

C due to its claimed lack of experience

in answering the Department’s

questionnaires. On July 24, 2000, the

Department granted Ssangyong an

extension until August 18, 2000 to

respond to Sections B and C. On August

14, 2000, the Department granted

Ssangyong an additional extension until

August 23, 2000, for Ssangyong to

respond to Sections B and C. See

Extension Letters from the Department

to Ssangyong dated July 24, 2000 and

August 14, 2000 (Ssangyong Extension

Letters). In both the July 24, 2000 and

August 14, 2000 letters, the Department

notified Ssangyong that if it did not

submit the information requested by the

applicable deadline, the Department

may find that Ssangyong has not acted

to the best of its ability and thus may

use an adverse inference in selecting

among FA, as provided for in section

776(b) of the Act. Ssangyong

subsequently failed to respond to

Sections B and C of the questionnaire

and, on August 23, 2000, submitted a

letter stating that it would not

participate further in this proceeding.

On September 20, 2000, the

Department initiated a COP

investigation and issued a Section D

questionnaire to Samyeung. On October

5, 2000, Samyeung requested an

11262 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

extension for filing a response to

Section D based on (1) its claim that the

company had limited resources and (2)

the concurrent Department deadlines for

both the Section D questionnaire and

supplemental questionnaires. The

Department granted Samyeung an

extension on the Section D

questionnaire and notified Samyeung

that if it did not submit the information

requested by the applicable deadline,

the Department may find that Samyeung

has not acted to the best of its ability

and thus may use an adverse inference

in selecting among FA, as provided for

in section 776(b) of the Act. See

Extension Letter from the Department to

Samyeung dated October 10, 2000

(Samyeung Extension Letter). However,

Samyeung failed to respond to the

Section D questionnaire and, on October

25, 2000, submitted a letter stating that

it would no longer continue to

participate in this proceeding. See

Memorandum on Application of Facts

Available for Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd.

(Samyeung) in the Preliminary Results

of the 1999 Administrative Review,

dated January 30, 2001 (Facts Available

Memorandum).

Second, in addition to their failure to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire, the information provided

by these two respondents is so

incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for reaching the applicable

determination. Ssangyong’s failure to

respond to Sections B and C of the

questionnaire is a critical omission.

Without U.S. and home market sales

data, the Department cannot calculate a

dumping margin for Ssangyong.

Likewise, Samyeung’s failure to provide

cost data is significant. Without cost

data, we are unable to determine

whether foreign market sales were made

below COP and, thus, we are prevented

from calculating an accurate normal

value and dumping margin for

Samyeung. Therefore, we find that the

information on the record for Ssangyong

and Samyeung is so incomplete that it

cannot serve as a reliable basis for

reaching the applicable determination

and thus, Ssangyong and Samyeung

have not satisfied the third criterion

under section 782(e) of the Act.

In addition, the Department finds,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,

that Ssangyong and Samyeung did not

act to the best of their ability to comply

with requests for information. In its

August 23, 2000 letter, Ssangyong stated

that ‘‘faced with the substantial amount

of detailed information that the

Department has requested to be

submitted in a very short time period,

Ssangyong has concluded that it lacks

the administrative resources to prepare

and submit responses to Sections B and

C of the questionnaire and otherwise to

continue participating further in the

proceeding.’’ Samyeung, in its October

25, 2000 letter, stated that the short time

period given to answer the Section D

questionnaire was too burdensome for

the company to comply. However, we

note that Ssangyong was granted two

extensions totaling 23 days to respond

to the Section B and C questionnaire

and Samyeung was granted a two-week

extension to respond to the cost

questionnaire. Also, neither Ssangyong

nor Samyeung requested an additional

extension of time to respond to the

questionnaire. Further, neither company

suggested alternative methods for

providing the requested information.

We note that it was Ssangyong and

Samyeung’s responsibility to provide a

‘‘full explanation and suggested

alternative forms’’ of responding to the

questionnaire under section 782(c) of

the Act. The Department considers

Ssangyong and Samyeung’s refusal to

submit their respective questionnaire

responses, despite the fact the

Department granted extensions of time

for filing the responses, and their refusal

to participate further in the review, as

a failure to cooperate to the best of their

ability with respect to our requests for

information. Thus, Ssangyong and

Samyeung have failed to satisfy the

fourth criterion of section 782(c) of the

Act.

Lastly, the information cannot be used

without undue difficulties. As a result

of Ssangyong and Samyeung’s failure to

provide the necessary information

requested, the information provided by

Ssangyong and Samyeung is not

complete enough to calculate a margin

based upon the statutory and regulatory

criteria. For example, as discussed

above, Ssangyong did not respond to

Sections B and C of the Department’s

questionnaire and Samyeung did not

respond to Section D of the

Department’s questionnaire. Thus,

Ssangyong and Samyeung have also

failed to satisfy the fifth criterion of

section 782(e) of the Act.

Given the above analysis, the

Department determines that Ssangyong

and Samyeung have not met all five

factors enumerated in section 782(e) of

the Act. Therefore, for the reasons stated

above, the use of FA is warranted for

these companies.

Selection of Adverse FA

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act authorizes the Department to

use an adverse inference if the

Department finds that an interested

party failed to cooperate by not acting

to the best of its ability to comply with

the request for information. See e.g.,

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20

(October 16, 1997).

Because B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd., Clad

Co., Ltd., Sae Kwang Aluminum Co.,

Ltd., East One Co., Ltd., East West

Trading Korea, Ltd., Bae Chin Metal Ind.

Co., Han Il Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd.,

Il Shin Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial

Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd.,

Namyang Kitchen Flower Co., Ltd., and

Chefline did not cooperate by wholly

failing to respond to the Department’s

questionnaire response, and in order to

ensure that they do not benefit from that

lack of cooperation, we are employing

an adverse inference in selecting from

facts otherwise available.

Further, because Ssangyong failed

completely to respond to Sections B and

C of the questionnaire and Samyeung

failed completely to respond to Section

D of the questionnaire, the Department

was prevented from making critical

decisions involving the calculation of

Sangyong and Samyeung’s dumping

margins. In addition, as required by

section 782(d) of the Act, Sangyong and

Samyeung were put on notice, via

Department extension letters and other

correspondence, that failure to respond

to the Department’s requests for

information constituted a deficiency

which could result in the use of FA.

See, e.g., Ssangyong Extension Letters.

Moreover, section 782(e) of the Act is

not applicable as the information

Ssangyong and Samyeung submitted is

so incomplete that it cannot serve as a

reliable basis for making a preliminary

determination. Accordingly, the

Department finds that Ssangyong and

Samyeung did not act to the best of their

ability to comply with the request for

information and thus, under section

776(b) of the Act, an adverse inference

is warranted.

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,

we are basing the margin for the 14

companies listed above on adverse FA

for purposes of these preliminary

results. As adverse FA, we have used

the highest rate calculated for any

respondent in any segment of this

proceeding. This rate is 31.23 percent.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Certain Stainless Steel

Cookware from Korea, 51 FR 42873

(November 26, 1986) (Final LTFV

Determination). Corroboration of

Information Used as FA

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes

the Department to use as adverse FA

information derived from the petition,

the final determination from the less

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11263

than fair value (LTFV) investigation, a

previous administrative review, or any

other information placed on the record.

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the

Department to corroborate, to the extent

practicable, secondary information used

as FA. Secondary information is defined

as ‘‘[i]nformation derived from the

petition that gave rise to the

investigation or review, the final

determination concerning the subject

merchandise, or any previous review

under section 751 concerning the

subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.

103–316 at 870 (1994).

The SAA further provides that the

term ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has

probative value (see SAA at 870). Thus,

to corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information used.

The rate selected was calculated using

verified information in the

investigation. See Final LTFV

Determination. The only source for

calculated margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as adverse facts available a

calculated dumping margin from a prior

segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period.

Furthermore, we have no new

information that would lead us to

reconsider the reliability of this rate.

As to the relevance of the margin used

for adverse FA, the courts have stated

that ‘‘[b]y requiring corroboration of

adverse inference rates, Congress clearly

intended that such rates should be

reasonable and have some basis in

reality.’’ F.Lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara

S. Martino S.p.A., v. U.S., 216 F.3d

1027, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

In determining a relevant and

reasonable adverse FA rate, the

Department notes that the FA rate

selected is the highest calculated margin

for any respondent in this proceeding.

See Final LTFV Determination. It is

reasonable to assume that if Ssangyong,

Samyeung, and the other nonresponding parties listed above could

have demonstrated that their dumping

margins are lower, they would have

participated in this review and

attempted to do so. See Rhone Poulenc,

Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185,

1190–91 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore,

given these 14 companies’ failure to

cooperate to the best of their ability in

this review, we have no reason to

believe that their dumping margins

would be any less than the highest rate

we have ever calculated or that other

available rates would reasonably ensure

that they do not benefit by failing to

cooperate fully. None of these

companies have previously participated

in this proceeding and therefore have

been receiving the ‘‘All Others’’ rate of

8.10 percent. The ‘‘All Others’’ rate is

obviously not enough to induce

cooperation by these companies. We

therefore have resorted to the highest

calculated rate used throughout the

proceeding and the rate that has been

used as the FA rate in previous reviews.

To further establish the relevance of the

FA rate, we looked at the range of salesspecific margins for one of the

cooperating respondents. Based on the

range of margins, a significant number

of sales by Dong Won are above the FA

rate. See Facts Available Memorandum.

Therefore, a rate of 31.23 percent can be

considered relevant and, as such,

appropriately used as FA for the nonresponding parties. Thus, we used the

highest rate determined in any segment

of this proceeding of 31.23 percent.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

cookware from South Korea to the

United States were made at less than

NV, we compared the export price (EP)

to the NV for both Dong Won and

Daelim, as specified in the EP and NV

sections of this notice, below. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of

the Act, we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual EP

transactions.

EP

For Dong Won and Daelim, we used

the Department’s EP methodology, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold by each producer outside the

United States directly to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation (or to

unaffiliated trading companies for

export to the United States) and CEP

methodology was not otherwise

warranted. We made deductions from

the starting price for movement

expenses in accordance with section

772(c) of the Act. Movement expenses

included, where appropriate, brokerage

and handling, international freight, and

marine insurance, in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For Dong

Won, we disallowed a duty drawback

adjustment to the starting price. See

Calculation Memorandum for Dong

Won, dated January 30, 2001. See also

Report on the Verification of the Sales

and Cost Responses for Dong Won,

dated January 30, 2001.

NV

1. 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) of the Act. Since

Daelim’s aggregate volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

was greater than five percent of its

aggregate volume U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market provides a viable

basis for calculating NV. Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the

Act, we based NV on home market sales.

Because Dong Won’s aggregate volume

of home market sales of the foreign like

product was less than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market was not viable.

Therefore, we have based NV for Dong

Won on third country sales in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade. Since Dong

Won’s aggregate volume of sales of the

foreign like product in Canada were

more than five percent of its aggregate

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, we used sales to Canada

as the third country comparison sales.

Furthermore, the Department noted that

Canada was Dong Won’s largest third

country market for cookware in terms of

both value and quantity, and the

cookware that Dong Won exported to

Canada was more similar to the subject

merchandise exported to the United

States than the cookware exported to

other comparison markets. For a further

discussion, see Memorandum Re:

Selection of Third Country Comparison

Market, dated June 28, 2000.

2. COP Analysis

Based on the cost allegations

submitted by petitioners on September

20, 2000, and in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the

Department found reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that Dong Won and

Daelim had made sales in the foreign

market at prices below the cost of

producing the merchandise, in

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

Act. See Memorandum to Thomas

11264 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

Futtner, Administrative Review of

Antidumping Duty Order on Top of the

Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware

From Korea: Analysis of Petitioners’

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of

Production for Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Dong Won’’), dated May 20, 2000, and

Memorandum to Thomas Futtner,

Administrative Review of Antidumping

Duty Order on Top of the Stove

Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From

Korea: Analysis of Petitioners’

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of

Production for Dae-Lim Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Daelim’’). As a result, the Department

initiated COP investigations to

determine whether Dong Won and

Daelim made foreign market sales

during the POR at prices below their

COP within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act. We conducted the

COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated, respectively,

COP based on the sum of Daelim and

Dong Won’s cost of materials and

fabrication (COM) for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for SG&A,

financial expense, and packing costs.

Daelim was unable to segregate between

its long-term and short-term investment

income in its calculation of net interest

expense. Therefore, we did not grant

Daelim an interest income offset. See

Cost Verification Report for Daelim,

dated January 30, 2001. For the

preliminary results, we relied on Dong

Won’s submitted information without

adjustment.

B. Test of Foreign Market Sales Prices

We compared COP to foreign market

sale prices of the foreign like product,

as required under section 773(b) of the

Act, in order to determine whether these

sales had been made at prices below the

COP. In determining whether to

disregard foreign market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined

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,

in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A)

and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific

basis, we compared the COP to foreign

market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, discounts and

rebates, and selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of the

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in substantial quantities. Where 20

percent or more of the respondent’s

sales of a given product during the POR

were at prices less than the COP, we

determined such sales to have been

made in substantial quantities within an

extended period of time, within the

meaning of section 773(b)(2)(B) of the

Act. Because we compared prices to

POR or fiscal year average costs, we also

determined that such sales were not

made at prices which would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

We found, looking at Dong Won’s

third country market sales and Daelim’s

home market sales, that both made sales

at below COP prices within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities.

Further, we found that these sales prices

did not permit for the recovery of costs

within a reasonable period of time.

Therefore, we excluded these sales from

our analysis and used the remaining

sales as the basis for determining NV, in

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

Act.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products sold

in the foreign markets as described in

the ‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of

this notice, above, that were in the

ordinary course of trade for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the foreign markets made in the

ordinary course of trade (i.e., sales

within the contemporaneous window

which passed the cost test), we

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most

similar foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade, based on the

characteristics listed in sections B and

C of our antidumping questionnaire, or

constructed value (CV), as appropriate.

Level of Trade (LOT)

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same LOT as the US transaction. The

NV LOT is that of the starting-price

sales in the comparison market or, when

NV is based on CV, that of the sales

from which we derive selling, general

and administrative (SG&A) expenses

and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT

is also the level of the starting-price

sale, which is usually from the exporter

to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP sales, we

examine stages in the marketing process

and selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the producer and

the unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and the export transaction, we make a

LOT adjustment under section

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

In determining whether separate

LOTs actually existed in the home and

U.S. markets for each respondent, we

examined whether the respondent’s

sales involved different marketing stages

(or their equivalent) based on the

channel of distribution, customer

categories, and selling functions (or

services offered) to each customer or

customer category, in both markets.

Dong Won reported sales through one

LOT, consisting of two channels of

distribution for its Canadian sales. The

first channel of distribution was direct

sales with two customer categories (i.e.,

distributors/wholesalers and retailers).

The second channel of distribution was

also sales to the two customer categories

listed above but through Korean trading

companies. Dong Won reported only EP

sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales,

Dong Won reported the same channels

of distribution and customer categories

as those in the third country market (i.e.,

direct sales to distributors/wholesalers

and retailers and direct sales to

distributers/wholesalers and retailers

through Korean trading companies).

Dong Won claimed in its response that

its U.S. and third country market sales

were made at the same LOT. For this

reason, Dong Won has not asked for a

LOT adjustment to NV for comparison

to its EP sales.

In analyzing Dong Won’s selling

activities for the third country and U.S.

market, we determined that essentially

the same services were provided for

both markets. These selling activities in

both markets were minimal in nature

and limited to some low levels of

technical service, warranty, ocean

freight, and advertising expenses, with

high levels of inland freight expenses.

No other services were rendered for

either third country or EP sales.

Therefore, based upon this information,

we have preliminarily determined that

the LOT for all EP sales is the same as

the LOT for all sales in the third country

market. Accordingly, because we find

the U.S. sales and third country market

sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act is warranted for Dong Won. See

Memorandum on LOT for Dong Won,

dated January 30, 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11265

Daelim reported sales through one

LOT, consisting of two channels of

distribution for its home market sales.

The first channel of distribution was

sales through its affiliate in the home

market, Living Star. The second channel

of distribution was direct sales on a very

sporadic basis to its employees or, in

extremely limited circumstances, to

home market customers. We have

preliminarily determined that these

direct sales are outside the ordinary

course of trade, and therefore have not

considered them in the calculation of

NV. See Memorandum on LOT for

Daelim, dated January 30, 2001. Daelim

reported only EP sales in the U.S.

market. For EP sales, Daelim reported

one LOT, consisting of two channels of

distribution. The first channel of

distribution was sales to unaffiliated

U.S. importers. The second channel of

distribution was sales to an unaffiliated

Korean trading company.

In analyzing Daelim’s selling

activities for the home market, we

determined that the selling activities

were minimal in nature and limited to

some low levels of technical service,

warranty, ocean freight, and advertising

expenses, with high levels of inland

freight expenses. No selling activities or

services were rendered for EP sales.

Therefore, based upon this information,

we have preliminarily determined that

there are differences in the number,

type, and degree of selling functions

performed in the home market as

compared to EP sales.

Section 773(a)(7)(A)(ii) of the Act

states that the Department will grant a

LOT adjustment only ‘‘if the difference

in the level of trade is demonstrated to

affect price comparability, based on a

pattern of consistent price differences

between sales at different levels of trade

in the country in which normal value is

determined.’’ As discussed above, we

find that the U.S. market LOT (EP sales)

is different from the home market LOT.

However, since we have determined

that there is only one LOT in the home

market, we are unable to calculate ‘‘a

pattern of consistent price differences

between sales at different levels of trade

in the country in which normal value is

determined.’’ Thus, in this instance, we

have not granted Daelim a LOT

adjustment to NV.

Date of Sale

For both foreign market and U.S.

transactions, Daelim and Dong Won

reported the date of the contract (i.e.,

purchase order) as the date of sale, i.e.,

the date when the material terms of sale

are finalized. The respondents note that

the purchase order confirms all major

terms of sale—price, quantity, and

product specification—as agreed to by

the respondents and the customer.

During the course of the review, the

Department found that there were

instances where the material terms of

sale had changed after the issuance of

an original purchase order. The

Department noted and verified that, in

those instances where the material

terms of sale had changed after the

issuance of an original purchase order,

a new purchase order had been issued

and the new purchase order served as

the reported date of sale. For a detailed

explanation, see Dong Won’s sales

verification report (January 30, 2001).

Therefore, because the Department

found that there were no changes in the

material terms of sale between the

purchase order (or revised purchase

order) and the invoice, the Department

preliminarily determines that the

purchase order date is the most

appropriate date to use for the date of

sale.

CV

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

respondents’ respective cost of materials

and fabrication employed in producing

the subject merchandise, SG&A

expenses, the profit incurred and

realized in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product, and U.S. packing costs. We

used the cost of materials, fabrication,

and G&A expenses as reported in the CV

portion of the questionnaire response,

adjusted for Daelim as discussed in the

COP section above. We used the U.S.

packing costs as reported in the U.S.

sales portion of the respondents’

questionnaire responses. For selling

expenses, we used the average of the

selling expenses reported for home

market sales that survived the cost test,

weighted by the total quantity of those

sales. For actual profit, we first

calculated, based on the home market

sales that survived the cost test, the

difference between the home market

sales value and home market COP, and

divided the difference by the home

market COP. We then multiplied this

percentage by the COP for each U.S.

model to derive an actual profit.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For those comparison products for

which there were sales that passed the

cost test, we based the respondents’ NV

on the price at which the foreign like

product is first sold for consumption in

Korea (Daelim) or Canada (Dong Won),

in the usual commercial quantities, in

the ordinary course of trade in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act. We based NV on sales at the

same LOT as the EP sales.

In accordance with section 773(a)(6)

of the Act, we made adjustments to the

foreign market price, where appropriate,

for discounts, movement expenses

(inland freight, brokerage and handling,

and international freight). To account

for differences in circumstances of sale

between the foreign market and the

United States, where appropriate, we

adjusted the foreign market price by

deducting foreign market direct selling

expenses (including credit) and

commissions and by adding U.S. direct

selling expenses (including U.S. credit

expenses). Because Dong Won could not

substantiate the payment of duties for

goods purchased, we disallowed a duty

drawback adjustment to the starting

price. For a further discussion, see Dong

Won’s sales verification report (January

30, 2001). Where commissions were

paid on foreign market sales and no

commissions were paid on U.S. sales,

we increased NV by the lesser of either:

(1) The amount of commission paid on

the foreign market sales or (2) the

indirect selling expenses incurred on

U.S. sales. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). In

order to adjust for differences in packing

between the two markets, we deducted

foreign market packing costs and added

U.S. packing costs, where appropriate,

in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)

and (B) of the Act.

With respect to both CV and home

market prices, we made adjustments,

where appropriate, for inland freight,

inland insurance, and discounts. We

also reduced CV and home market

prices by packing costs incurred in the

home market, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. In

addition, we increased CV and home

market prices for U.S. packing costs, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of

the Act. We made further adjustments to

home market prices, when applicable, to

account for differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)

of the Act. Finally, pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made an

adjustment for differences in

circumstances of sale by deducting

home market direct selling expenses

and adding any direct selling expenses

associated with U.S. sales not deducted

under the provisions of section

772(d)(1) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margins exist for the period January 1,

1999, through December 31, 1999:

11266 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd ............. 14.14

Dae-Lim Trading Co., Ltd ............. 1.69

Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd .............. 31.23

Ssang Yong Ind. Co., Ltd ............. 31.23

Chefline Corporation ..................... 31.23

B.Y Enterprise, Ltd ....................... 31.23

Clad Co., Ltd ................................ 31.23

Sae Skwang Aluminum Co., Ltd .. 31.23

East One Co., Ltd ......................... 31.23

East West Trading Korea, Ltd ...... 31.23

Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co ................ 31.23

Han Il Stainless Steel Ind. Co.,

Ltd ............................................. 31.23

Il Shin Co., Ltd .............................. 31.23

Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd .... 31.23

Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd ............. 31.23

Namyang Kitchen Flower Co., Ltd 31.23

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will disclose to parties to

the proceeding any calculations

performed in connection with these

preliminary results within 5 days of the

date of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. All case briefs must be

submitted within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, which are limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than seven days after the case briefs are

filed. Further, we would appreciate it if

parties submitting written comments

would provide the Department with an

additional copy of the public version of

any such comments on diskette. A

hearing, if requested, will be held two

days after the date the rebuttal briefs are

filed or the first business day thereafter.

The Department will publish a notice

of the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of the issues raised in any

written comments, within 120 days

from the publication of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties. We

have calculated importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rates based on

the ratio of the total amount of dumping

margins calculated for the examined

sales to the entered value of sales used

to calculate those duties. We will direct

Customs to liquidate without regard to

antidumping duties any entries for

which the assessment rate is de

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of top-of-stove stainless steel cooking

ware from Korea entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after publication date of the final results

of these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed companies will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review, except if the rate

is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem and,

therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit

will be required; (2) for exporters not

covered in this review, but covered in

the original LTFV investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit rate

will continue to be the companyspecific rate published in the most

recent period; (3) if the exporter is not

a firm covered in this review, 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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews

or the LTFV investigation, the cash

deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the

‘‘all-others’’ rate established in the

LTFV investigation. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

of the Department’s regulations 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 this

notice are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T.

Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: January 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement II.

[FR Doc. 01–4537 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–857, A–201–828]

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Welded Large

Diameter Line Pipes From Mexico and

Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty

investigations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Johnson (Mexico) or Nancy Decker

(Japan) at (202) 482–3818 and (202)

482–0196, respectively; Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

The Petitions

On January 10, 2001, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) received

petitions filed in proper form by the

following parties: Berg Steel Pipe Corp.,

American Steel Pipe Division of

American Cast Iron Pipe Company, and

Stupp Corporation (collectively

‘‘petitioners’’). Additionally, one other

domestic producer, although a nonpetitioner, issued a statement

supporting the petition. The Department

received information from the

petitioners supplementing the petition

on January 22, January 24, January 26,

and January 29, 2001.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of welded large diameter line

pipes (hereafter referred to as LDLP)