Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices 11559

find a complete discussion of all issues

raised in this review and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public memorandum which is on file

the Central Records Unit in Room B–099

of the main Commerce Building. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum can be accessed

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changes

to the margin calculations. For a

discussion of these changes, see the

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the

Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we have

determined that the following margin

exists for the period September 1, 1998

through August 31, 1999:

Manufacturer/

exporter Period Margin(percent)

MAN Roland

Druckmaschinen AG ... 9/1/98–8/31/99 0.00

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service. For entries of

subject merchandise from MAN Roland,

we have calculated an importer-specific

assessment rate by aggregating the

dumping margins calculated for all

examined sales and dividing by the

entered value of those sales. This rate

will be assessed uniformly on all entries

of that particular importer made with

respect to the U.S. sale examined. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),

we will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries of the subject

merchandise for which the importerspecific assessment rate is zero or de

minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

shall be effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise from Germany that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date of the final results

of these administrative review, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for MAN

Roland will be the rate established

above in the ‘‘Final Results of the

Review’’ section; (2) for previously

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate 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

review, or the original 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) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters of this merchandise will

continue to be 30.72 percent, the all

others rate made effective by the lessthan-fair value investigation. These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice 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

written notification of return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulation and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are issued and published in accordance

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

Dated: February 16, 2001.

Timothy J. Hauser,

Acting Under Secretary for International

Trade.

Appendix—Issues in Decision

Memorandum

Comments

1. Date of Sale

2. Classification of MAN Roland’s U.S. Sale

3. CEP Offset Adjustment

4. Calculation of Imputed Credit Expenses

5. Affiliated Party Commissions

6. Home Market Warranty Expenses

7. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in

Germany

8. Allocation of General and Administrative

Expenses to Further Manufacturing

9. Treatment of Installation Costs Incurred in

the United States

10. Calculation of Constructed Value Profit

11. Inclusion of Home Market Installation

Expenses in Home Market Cost of

Manufacture for Profit Calculations

[FR Doc. 01–4659 Filed 2–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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)

11560 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices

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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices 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-thanfair-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 noncompliance 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:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(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

11562 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices

1Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of 1998–1999

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of

Review, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in

Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (‘‘Final

Results’’).

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 § 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

§§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–841–804]

Notice of Postponement of the Final

Determination of Investigation: Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bars From

Moldova

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nithya Nagarajan or Michele Mire at

(202) 482–5253 or (202) 482–4711,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 4, Group II, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to Department of

Commerce (the Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

This investigation was initiated on

July 18, 2000. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations: Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Austria,

Belarus, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia,

Moldova, the People’s Republic of

China, Poland, the Republic of Korea,

the Russian Federation, Ukraine and

Venezuela, 65 FR 45754 (July 25, 2000).

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1999 through March 31,

2000. On January 30, 2001, the

Department published the notice of

preliminary determination. See Notice

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value: Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars from Moldova, 66 FR

8338 (January 30, 2001).

Postponement of Final Determination

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the date of the publication of the

preliminary determination if, in the

event of an affirmative determination, a

request for such postponement is made

by exporters who account for a

significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise, or in the event of

a negative preliminary determination, a

request for such postponement is made

by petitioner. The Department’s

regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2),

require that requests by respondents for

postponement of a final determination

be accompanied by a request for

extension of provisional measures from

a four-month period to not more than

six months.

On February 1, 2001, JV CJSC

Moldova Steel Works (MSW), the

respondent in this investigation,

requested that the Department extend

the final determination for the

maximum statutory period of 135 days

after the publication of the preliminary

determination. MSW also requested that

the Department extend the imposition of

provisional measures from a four-month

period to not more than six months.

Accordingly, since we have made an

affirmative preliminary determination,

and MSW is the sole producer of the

subject merchandise in Moldova, we

have postponed the final determination

until not later than 135 days after the

date of publication of the preliminary

determination or June 14, 2001.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the

Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard

T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: February 15, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II.

[FR Doc. 01–4661 Filed 2–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–601]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From the People’s Republic of China;

Amended Final Results of 1998–1999

Administrative Review and

Determination To Revoke Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of 1998–1999 administrative review and

determination to revoke order in part.

SUMMARY: On January 10, 2001, the

Department published the final results

of the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from the

People’s Republic of China.1 On January

12, 2001, certain respondents filed

allegations of ministerial errors and on

January 18, 2001, the petitioner filed a

response to the allegations. Based on

our review of the comments received

from all parties regarding potential

ministerial errors, we have made certain

changes to the margin calculation of

respondent Wafangdian Bearing

Company Ltd. The final weightedaverage dumping margin for this

company is now zero. We have,