98-34462. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 1999)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 101-108]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-34462]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [A-583-831]
    
    
    Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
    Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet 
    and Strip in Coils From Taiwan
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1999.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy (Chang Mien), Doreen Chen 
    (Tung Mung), Gideon Katz (YUSCO) or Michael Panfeld, Import 
    Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
    Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
    20230; telephone: (202) 482-0165, (202) 482-0408, (202) 482-5255, and 
    (202) 482-0172, respectively.
    
    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, 62 
    FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).
    
    PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: We preliminarily determine that stainless 
    steel sheet and strip in coils (``SSSS'') from Taiwan is being, or is 
    likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
    (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated 
    margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
    section of this notice.
    
    Case History
    
        On July 13, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
    investigations of imports of SSSS from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
    Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. See Initiation of 
    Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
    Coils From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, 
    and the United Kingdom, 63 FR 37521, (July 13, 1998) (``Initiation''). 
    Since the initiation of this investigation the following events have 
    occurred.
        The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
    raise issues regarding product coverage. On July 27, 1998, petitioners, 
    Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Armco Inc., J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., 
    Washington Steel Division of Bethlehem Steel Corporation (formerly 
    Lukens, Inc.), the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the 
    Butler Armco Independent Union, and the Zanesville Armco Independent 
    Organization, Inc., filed comments proposing clarifications to the 
    scope of these investigations. From July October, 1998, the Department 
    received numerous responses from respondents aimed at clarifying the 
    scope of the investigations. See Memorandum for Joseph A. Spetrini, 
    Scope Issues, dated December 14, 1998.
        On July 31, 1998, the Department requested information from the 
    American Institute in Taiwan (``AIT'') to identify producers/exporters 
    of the subject merchandise. On August 2, 1998, AIT responded to the 
    Department's request for information. On July 27 and July 28, 1998, 
    petitioners and Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO), respectively, 
    submitted comments on our proposed model matching criteria.
        On July 24, 1998, the United States International Trade Commission 
    (ITC) notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury 
    determination in this case. On August 3, 1998, the Department issued 
    antidumping questionnaires to YUSCO, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., 
    Ltd. (``Chia Far''), Tang Eng Iron Works Co., Ltd. (``Tang Eng''), Tung 
    Mung Development Co., Ltd. (``Tung Mung''), Ta Chen International (``Ta 
    Chen''), and Chang Mien Industries, Co., Ltd. (``Chang Mien''). On 
    September 21, 1998, the Department selected YUSCO and Tung Mung 
    (collectively ``respondents'') as respondents in this investigation. On 
    November 3, 1998, the Department amended its decision to include Chang 
    Mien as a mandatory respondent. See ``Selection of Respondents,'' 
    below.
        On September 8, 1998, we received the section A questionnaire 
    response from Chang Mien. On September 21, 1998, we received sections 
    B, C, and D of the questionnaire from Chang Mien. Petitioners filed 
    comments on Chang Mien's questionnaire responses on September 24, and 
    November 12, 1998. We issued supplemental questionnaires for sections 
    A, B, C and D to Chang Mien on November 13, 1998, and December 3, 1998, 
    and received responses to these questionnaires on November 27, 1998 and 
    December 10, 1998. Additionally, on December 4, 1998, petitioners 
    submitted comments concerning adjustments that the Department should 
    make in its preliminary determination.
        On September 8, 1998, we received the section A questionnaire 
    response from Tung Mung. On September 24, 1998, we received sections B, 
    C, and D of the questionnaire from Tung Mung. Petitioners filed 
    comments on Tung Mung's questionnaire responses on September 24, and 
    October 16, 1998. We issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections 
    A, B, C and D to Tung Mung on October 26, 1998, and received responses 
    to this questionnaire on November 12, 1998. On November 18, 1998, we 
    requested that Tung Mung report the date or order, which Tung Mung 
    describes as ``initial estimates,'' and also requested that Tung Mung 
    ensure that all those home market sales for which ``initial estimates'' 
    were finalized during the period of the investigation are included in 
    the revised home market sales listing. On December 2, Tung Mung 
    provided the requested information.
        On September 8, 1998, we received the section A questionnaire 
    response from YUSCO. On September 25, 1998, we received sections B and 
    C of the questionnaire, and on September 28, 1998, we received section 
    D of the questionnaire from YUSCO. Petitioners filed comments on 
    YUSCO's questionnaire responses on September 25, 1998 and October 19, 
    1998. We issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C 
    to YUSCO on October 26, 1998, and received a response to this 
    questionnaire on November 18, 1998. We issued a supplemental 
    questionnaire for section D on November 2, 1998 and received a response 
    on November 16, 1998. We issued a second supplemental questionnaire for 
    sections A, B, and C on November 25, 1998 and received a response on 
    December 3, 1998.
        On October 6, 1998, petitioners made a timely request for a thirty-
    day postponement of the preliminary determination pursuant to section 
    733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The Department determined that these 
    concurrent investigations are extraordinarily complicated and warranted 
    the thirty-day postponement requested by petitioners. On October 23, 
    1998, we
    
    [[Page 102]]
    
    postponed the preliminary determination until no later than December 
    17, 1998. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 
    France, Germany, Mexico, Japan, the Republic of South Korea, the United 
    Kingdom and Taiwan; Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
    Determinations in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 63 FR 56909 (October 
    23, 1998). On October 30, 1998, petitioners alleged that there is a 
    reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
    exist with respect to imports of SSSS from Taiwan. The critical 
    circumstances analysis for the preliminary determination is discussed 
    in the ``Critical Circumstances'' section of the notice below.
        Finally, on December 3, 1998, petitioners submitted comments 
    regarding the product concordance. For specific adjustments to the 
    product concordance information submitted by Chang Mien, see Memorandum 
    to the File: Analysis of Chang Mien in the Preliminary Determination of 
    Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, December 17, 
    1998.
        On October 14 and 15, 1998, petitioners alleged that Ta Chen is 
    reselling subject merchandise by certain respondents in the United 
    States at prices less than Ta Chen's cost of acquisition and related 
    selling and movement expenses. On December 3, 1998, we initiated a 
    middleman dumping investigation against Ta Chen. The results of that 
    investigation will be incorporated in the final determination of this 
    investigation.
    
    Postponement of Final Determination
    
        Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 9, 1998, 
    YUSCO requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
    determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
    determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
    publication of an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal 
    Register. YUSCO also requested to extend the provisional measures to 
    not more than six months. Additionally, on December 11 and 15, 1998, 
    Tung Mung and Chang Mien, respectively requested a postponement of the 
    deadline for the Final Determination and an extension of provisional 
    measures, if found that their margins are higher than de minimis. In 
    accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary 
    determination is affirmative, (2) YUSCO and Tung Mung account for a 
    significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) 
    no compelling reasons for a denial exists, we are granting the 
    respondent's request and are postponing the final determination until 
    no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the 
    Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended 
    accordingly.
    
    Scope of the Investigation
    
        For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
    certain stainless steel sheet and strip 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 sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
    greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
    that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
    descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
    (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
    it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
    processing.
        The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
    Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
    subheadings: 7219.13.00.30, 7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70, 
    7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 
    7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 
    7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 
    7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 
    7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 
    7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 
    7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 
    7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 
    7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 
    7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 
    7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 
    7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 
    7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 
    7220.20.90.60, 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 Department's written description 
    of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
        Excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following: 
    (1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and 
    pickled or otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to 
    length; (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a 
    thickness of 4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled 
    sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not 
    more than 9.5 mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a 
    flat rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-
    rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and 
    a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 
    percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
    manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional 
    U.S. Note'' 1(d).
        In response to comments by interested parties the Department has 
    determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
    excluded from the scope of this investigation. These excluded products 
    are described below:
        Flapper valve steel is excluded. It is defined as stainless steel 
    strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent 
    carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 
    0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus 
    of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and 
    sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means 
    of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no 
    more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. 
    Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, 
    yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
    hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
    commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
        Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
    specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
    assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
    302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
    and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
    microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
    foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
    a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
    with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
    residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
    over 685 mm length.
        Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters 
    also is excluded from the scope of this investigation. This stainless 
    steel strip
    
    [[Page 103]]
    
    in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
    microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
    for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
    weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
    1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
    19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
    no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
    lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth 
    elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
        Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip also is 
    excluded from the scope of this investigation. This ductile stainless 
    steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
    percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
    and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
    remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
    50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
    sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
    as ``Arnokrome III.'' 1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
    Company.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Certain electrical resistance alloy steel also is excluded from the 
    scope of this investigation. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
    stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
    Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
    percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
    notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
    melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
    limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
    This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
    for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
    railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
    proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' 2
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel also 
    is excluded from the scope of this investigation. This high-strength, 
    ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified 
    Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 
    11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 
    manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 
    percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 
    0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium 
    added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 
    1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after 
    aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is 
    generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in 
    widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the 
    manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under 
    proprietary trade names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' 3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
    industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments also are 
    excluded from the scope of this investigation. These include stainless 
    steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools 
    (e.g., carpet knives).4 This steel is similar to ASTM grade 
    440F, but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The 
    steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, 
    sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 
    percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 
    sold under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
    stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
    by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
    0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
    phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
    0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
    carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is 
    ``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
    similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
    molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
    between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
    percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
    more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
    more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
    as, for example, ``GIN6''. 5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
    descriptive purposes only.
        \5\ ``GIN4 Mo'', ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
    grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Period of Investigation
    
        The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 1997 through 
    March 31, 1998.
    
    Selection of Respondents
    
        Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
    individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
    subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
    Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
    producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
    companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it 
    is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject 
    merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate 
    either: (1) A sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that 
    is statistically valid based on the information available at the time 
    of selection; or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest 
    volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
        After consideration of the complexities expected to arise in this 
    proceeding and the resources available to the Department, we determined 
    that it was not practicable in this investigation to examine all known 
    producers/exporters of subject merchandise. Instead, we found that, 
    given our resources, we would be able to investigate the Taiwanese 
    producers/exporters with the greatest export volume, as identified 
    above. In total, these companies (YUSCO, Tung Mung and Chang Mien) 
    accounted for more than 85 percent of all known exports of the subject 
    merchandise from Taiwan during the POI. For a more detailed discussion 
    of respondent selection in this investigation, see Respondent Selection 
    Memorandum, September 24, 1998.
    
    Fair Value Comparisons
    
        To determine whether sales of SSSS from Taiwan to the United States 
    were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price 
    (``EP'') to the normal value (``NV''), as described in the ``export 
    price'' section of this notice below. In accordance with section 
    777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs for 
    comparison to weighted-average NVs.
        On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
    issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir.). 
    In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court 
    discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as the 
    basis for foreign market value when the Department finds home market 
    sales to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' The
    
    [[Page 104]]
    
    URAA amended the definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of 
    trade'' to include sales below cost. See Section 771(15) of the Act. 
    Consequently, the Department has reconsidered its practice in 
    accordance with this court decision and has determined that it would be 
    inappropriate to resort directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market 
    sales, as the basis for NV if the Department finds foreign market sales 
    of merchandise identical or most similar to that sold in the United 
    States to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the 
    Department will use sales of similar merchandise, if such sales exist. 
    The Department will use CV as the basis for NV only when there are no 
    above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for comparison.
    
    Transactions Investigated
    
    YUSCO
    
        For its home market sales, YUSCO reported the Government Uniform 
    Invoice (``GUI'') date as the date of sale, while for its U.S. market 
    sales, YUSCO reported the commercial invoice date as the date of sale. 
    YUSCO stated that the sale dates submitted for each market represented 
    the date when the essential terms of sales, i.e., price and quantity, 
    are definitively set, and that until the invoice date, these terms were 
    subject to change. Petitioners alleged that the questionnaire response 
    by YUSCO does not support YUSCO's claim that price and quantity may 
    change at any time between the order acceptance date (confirmation 
    date) and the final invoice date. Given the relevance of petitioners' 
    comments and the nature of marketing these types of made-to-order 
    products, petitioners' claims have some merit. Consequently, on October 
    26, 1998, the Department requested that YUSCO provide additional 
    information concerning the nature and frequency of price and quantity 
    changes occurring between order and invoice. In addition, we requested 
    that YUSCO report sales during the POI for which YUSCO had issued an 
    order acceptance, in addition to those sales invoiced during the POI. 
    Based on our analysis of the information submitted by YUSCO, we have 
    preliminarily determined that for home market and U.S. sales, the GUI 
    and commercial invoice dates, respectively, are the appropriate 
    indicators of the actual date of sale because a large percentage of 
    orders in each market were modified or canceled during the time between 
    order and invoice dates.
        YUSCO reported that it made sales of subject merchandise to several 
    end-users during the POI, including Yieh Mau, to which YUSCO claims an 
    affiliation. With respect to Yieh Mau, there is no equity ownership of 
    five percent or more between the two companies and YUSCO did not 
    provide record evidence sufficient to demonstrate either financial or 
    operational control of Yieh Mau. Therefore, the Department 
    preliminarily determines that Yieh Mau is not affiliated with YUSCO. 
    See Proprietary Analysis Memorandum: YUSCO. With respect to the other 
    allegedly affiliated parties, the Department has likewise conducted an 
    analysis of these parties' affiliation with YUSCO. Because the 
    identities of these parties, as well as all pertinent information 
    regarding the affiliations, is proprietary information, please refer to 
    the Proprietary Analysis Memorandum: YUSCO. We note that the Department 
    intends to examine closely all affiliation issues at verification.
        Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-
    length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered 
    them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102. To 
    test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared 
    on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
    and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling 
    expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested models of subject 
    merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 
    percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined 
    that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 19 
    CFR 351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio could be constructed 
    for an affiliated customer because identical merchandise was not sold 
    to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine that these sales 
    were made at arm's-length prices and, therefore, excluded them from our 
    less than fair value (``LTFV'') analysis. See Final Determination of 
    Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
    Products from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993); Notice of 
    Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
    Postponement of Final Determination: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber 
    from Brazil, 63 Fed. Reg. 59509 (Nov. 8, 1998). Where the exclusion of 
    such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison 
    product, we made a comparison to the next most similar model.
    
    Tung Mung
    
        For its home market, Tung Mung reported the date of invoice as the 
    date of sale, while for its U.S. market sales, Tung Mung reported the 
    contract date as the date of sale. Tung Mung stated that the sale dates 
    submitted for each market represented the date when the essential terms 
    of sales, i.e., price and quantity, are definitively set, and that up 
    to the invoice date, these terms were subject to change. Petitioners 
    alleged that the questionnaire response by Tung Mung did not support 
    Tung Mung's claim that for home market sales, price and quantity may 
    change at any time between the order acceptance date (confirmation 
    date) and the final invoice date. Given the relevance of petitioners' 
    comments and the nature of marketing these types of made-to-order 
    products, petitioners' claims have some merit. Consequently, on October 
    26 and November 18, 1998, the Department requested that Tung Mung 
    provide additional information concerning the nature and frequency of 
    price and quantity changes occurring between the confirmation date and 
    date of invoice. In addition, we requested that Tung Mung report sales 
    during the POI for which Tung Mung had issued an order acceptance, in 
    addition to those sales invoiced during the POI. Based on our analysis 
    of the information submitted by Tung Mung, we have preliminarily 
    determined that the sales contract date is the appropriate date of sale 
    because the sale contract date is the date on which the terms are 
    finalized. With respect to home market sales, we have preliminarily 
    determined that the date of invoice is the appropriate date of sale 
    since it is the date on which the terms are set and not changed 
    thereafter. For a further discussion of this issue, see Analysis 
    Memorandum: Tung Mung.
    
    Chang Mien
    
        In its original questionnaire response, Chang Mien reported that 
    for home market transactions it was using the date of invoice as the 
    date of sale because Chang Mien's accounting books treated date of sale 
    in this manner. In petitioners' November 12, 1998 submission, they 
    stated that it appeared that Chang Mien was using the wrong date of 
    sale. Given the relevance of petitioners' comments and the nature of 
    marketing these types of made-to-order products, petitioners' claims 
    have some merit. Consequently, on November 13, 1998, the Department 
    requested that Chang Mien provide additional information concerning the 
    nature and frequency of price and quantity changes occurring between 
    the confirmation date and date of invoice. In its November 27, 1998 
    supplemental response Chang Mien stated that because home market 
    customers purchase from inventory, ``there usually is no price change 
    or
    
    [[Page 105]]
    
    change in quantity between order confirmation date (day 0) and shipping 
    (invoice date) (day 1-3).'' See Chang Mien's November 27, 1998 
    supplemental response at 8. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
    the date of the order confirmation is the more appropriate sale date. 
    Accordingly, on December 3, 1998, the Department requested that Chang 
    Mien submit a revised home market sales listing using date of order 
    confirmation as the sale date.
        Also, in its November 27, 1998 supplemental response, Chang Mien 
    reported that for its U.S. transactions it was using the date of sale 
    employed in its accounting system, i.e., the export declaration date 
    for sales through August 31, 1997, and after August 31, 1997, the date 
    of shipment. In the preamble to the regulations, the Department 
    addressed the issue of why it was appropriate normally to use date of 
    invoice, not date of shipment as the uniform date of sale. 
    Specifically, the Department noted in the preamble that: (1) date of 
    shipment is not among the possible dates of sale specified in note 8 of 
    the AD Agreement; (2) date of shipment rarely represents the date on 
    which the material terms of sale are established; (3) firms rarely use 
    shipment documents as the basis for preparation of financial reports, 
    thus making reliance on date of shipment at verification more 
    difficult; and (4) concerns regarding possible manipulation by using 
    date of invoice do not warrant substituting date of shipment for date 
    of invoice.'' Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 
    FR 27297, 27349 (May 19, 1997). In this case, Chang Mien has reported 
    that the terms of sale changed between the order date and the invoice 
    date. Specifically, an analysis of all U.S. sales of subject 
    merchandise in the POI reveals that for approximately 94 percent of the 
    sales there was a change between the quantity ordered and the quantity 
    shipped, and that for approximately 30 percent of the sales, the change 
    between the quantity ordered and the quantity shipped was greater than 
    the accepted industry tolerances. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
    that the invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for U.S. 
    transactions. Accordingly, on December 3, 1998, the Department 
    requested that Chang Mien submit a revised U.S. sales listing using 
    date of invoice as the sale date. For a further discussion of this 
    issue, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis of Chang Mien in the 
    Preliminary Determination of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
    from Taiwan, December 17, 1998.
    
    Product Comparisons
    
        In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
    all products produced by respondents, covered by the description in the 
    ``Scope of Investigation'' section, above, and sold in the home market 
    during the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
    appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no 
    sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
    sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
    product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions 
    listed in the Department's August 3, 1998 questionnaire.
    
    Level of Trade
    
        In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
    extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
    market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or constructed 
    export price (``CEP'') 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 
    expenses (``SG&A'') and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of 
    the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the 
    importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
    exporter to the importer.
        To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
    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 comparison market sales at the LOT of 
    the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
    773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
    more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
    for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and 
    CEP sales affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 
    773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final 
    Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
    Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
        In this investigation, none of the respondents requested a LOT 
    adjustment. To ensure that no such adjustment was necessary, in 
    accordance with principles discussed above, we examined information 
    regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and Taiwan 
    markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer and 
    selling expenses for each respondent.
    
    YUSCO
    
        YUSCO reported one LOT in the home market and one LOT in the U.S. 
    market. YUSCO reported that it made sales in the home market through 
    one channel of distribution, directly from the plant to distributors, 
    end users, and further manufacturers. In the U.S. market, YUSCO 
    reported that it made sales through one channel of distribution, 
    directly from the plant to trading companies and distributors.
        The Department examined the selling activities performed within 
    each LOT reported. YUSCO's selling activities in the home market were 
    comprised of technical advice, warranty services and freight and 
    delivery arrangements. YUSCO claimed that there were no other sales 
    support activities. None of YUSCO's home market selling activities 
    differed by customer category. YUSCO's selling activities in the U.S. 
    market were comprised of warranty services and freight and delivery 
    arrangements. Sales to trading companies were made on an FOB, FOR, or 
    C&F basis and sales to distributors were made on an FOB or CIF basis. 
    YUSCO claims that its selling activities did not differ by customer 
    category in any other way in the U.S. market. Because there are only 
    insignificant differences between the selling functions on sales made 
    to home market and U.S. customers, we preliminarily conclude that there 
    is one LOT in both the U.S. and home market and that sales to these 
    customers constitute the same LOT in each market. Therefore a LOT 
    adjustment for YUSCO is not appropriate. For a further discussion of 
    the Department's LOT analysis with respect to YUSCO, see Memorandum to 
    the File: Analysis of YUSCO in the Preliminary Determination of 
    Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, December 17, 
    1998.
    
    Tung Mung
    
        Tung Mung claimed that there was only one LOT in the home market. 
    Tung Mung reported that in the home market it made sales to 
    distributors, service centers, and end-users through one channel of 
    distribution. Tung Mung offered freight and delivery arrangements and 
    warranty services to all customers in the home market. Based
    
    [[Page 106]]
    
    on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that Tung Mung had one LOT 
    in its home market.
        In the U.S. market, Tung Mung reported that it sold at one LOT 
    through two channels of distribution, (1) a foreign distributor and (2) 
    domestic trading companies. In the U.S. market, Tung Mung reported only 
    one LOT to customers. Tung Mung reported that it performed identical 
    selling functions in the United States and in the home market. These 
    selling functions include freight and delivery arrangements and 
    warranty services. Therefore, we preliminary conclude that there is one 
    LOT in the U.S. and that sales to these customers constitute the same 
    LOT in the comparison market and the United States. Therefore a LOT 
    adjustment for Tung Mung is not appropriate. For a further discussion 
    of the Department's LOT analysis with respect to Tung Mung, see 
    Memorandum to the File: Analysis of Tung Mung in the Preliminary 
    Determination of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, 
    December 17, 1998.
    
    Chang Mien
    
        Chang Mien reported two LOTs in the home market and two channels of 
    distribution. Within both channels of distribution, the merchandise is 
    either shipped immediately to the customer or stored in Chang Mien's 
    warehouse. In the home market, Chang Mien stated that it performed 
    identical selling activities for both channels of distribution such as 
    providing inventory maintenance, technical advice, warranty services, 
    delivery arrangements, and advertising. Although the selling activities 
    offered are identical for each of its customers, an additional selling 
    activity is performed for those sales which are stored in inventory. 
    However, we preliminarily determine that sales on which inventory 
    maintenance is performed do not involve significantly greater resources 
    than sales on which inventory maintenance is not performed and, 
    therefore, do not constitute a separate LOT. Therefore, because Chang 
    Mien performs identical selling activities for each claimed LOT, we 
    preliminarily find that the two claimed LOTs constitute one LOT.
        In the U.S. market, Chang Mien reported that it sold at one LOT, 
    through one channel of distribution, and to one type of customer 
    (trading company). For sales in the U.S. market, Chang Mien performed 
    the following activities: packing, delivery arrangements (i.e., 
    transportation, brokerage and handling, and marine insurance), 
    advertising, and warranty services. Based on a comparison of the 
    selling activities performed in the U.S. market to the selling 
    activities in the home market, we preliminarily conclude that there is 
    not a significant difference in the selling functions performed in both 
    markets. We preliminarily conclude that U.S. sales are made at the same 
    LOT as the home market. Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not appropriate. 
    For a further discussion of the Department's LOT analysis with respect 
    to Chang Mien, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis of Chang Mien in 
    the Preliminary Determination of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
    Coils from Taiwan, December 17, 1998.
    
    Export Price
    
        For all respondents, we based our calculation on EP, in accordance 
    with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was 
    sold by the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated 
    purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP 
    methodology was not otherwise indicated. Furthermore, we calculated EP 
    based on packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in 
    the United States.
        We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
    
    YUSCO
    
        We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for 
    the following movement expenses, in accordance with section 
    772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight; international freight; 
    marine insurance; brokerage and handling expenses; container handling 
    fees; and certification fees. No other adjustments were claimed or 
    allowed.
    
    Tung Mung
    
        We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for 
    the following movement expenses, in accordance with section 
    772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight; containerization 
    expenses; brokerage and handling expenses; harbor duty fees, and bank 
    charges. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty 
    drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    
    Chang Mien
    
        We made deductions for foreign inland freight, brokerage and 
    handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance, in accordance with 
    section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added to the U.S. 
    price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
    the Act. For further information, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis 
    of Chang Mien in the Preliminary Determination of Stainless Steel Sheet 
    and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, December 17, 1998.
    
    Normal Value
    
        After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
    were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
    Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections of this 
    notice.
    
    Home Market Viability
    
        In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
    in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
    the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
    is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
    U.S. sales), we compared each of 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)(B) of the 
    Act. Since each of the respondent's aggregate volume of home market 
    sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its 
    aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we 
    determined that the home market was viable for all respondents. 
    Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual 
    commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
    
    Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
    
        Based on the cost allegation submitted by petitioners in the 
    petition, the Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
    that respondents had made sales in the home market at prices below the 
    cost of producing the merchandise, in accordance with section 
    773(b)(2)(A) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated an 
    investigation to determine whether respondents made home market sales 
    during the POI at prices below their respective COPs within the meaning 
    of section 773(b) of the Act. See Initiation.
        We conducted the COP analysis described below.
    A. Calculation of COP
        In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
    based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
    foreign like product, plus amounts for home market SG&A, interest 
    expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by 
    each respondent in its cost questionnaire response.
    
    [[Page 107]]
    
    B. Test of Home Market Prices
        We compared the weighted-average COP for each respondent, adjusted 
    where appropriate (see above), to home market sales of the foreign like 
    product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining 
    whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the 
    COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, such 
    sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made 
    at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
    period of time in the normal course of trade. On a product-specific 
    basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable 
    movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses.
    C. Results of the COP Test
        Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
    percent of 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 a respondent's 
    sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the 
    COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
    quantities,'' pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(c)(i), and within an 
    extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
    Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to weighted-average COPs 
    for the POI , 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. 
    Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a 
    specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales 
    of that product.
    D. Calculation of CV
        In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
    based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
    interest expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with 
    section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the 
    amounts incurred and realized by respondent in connection with the 
    production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
    of trade for consumption in Taiwan.
    
    Price-to-Price Comparisons
    
        We performed price-to-price comparisons where there were sales of 
    comparable merchandise in the home market that did not fail the cost 
    test. There were no sales to affiliated customers in the home market 
    for any respondent. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for 
    physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
    773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act.
    
    YUSCO
    
        For YUSCO's home market sales of products that were above COP, we 
    based NV on prices to home market customers. YUSCO classified certain 
    home market customers as affiliated, and one of these customers, Yieh 
    Mau, reported its downstream sales in the home and U.S. markets. We 
    have preliminarily determined that these customers were not affiliated 
    because five percent or more ownership does not exist between YUSCO and 
    any of these companies. Additionally, the record does not show that 
    these customers meet any other of the ``affiliated persons'' criteria 
    set forth in Section 771(33) of the Act. Therefore, we did not conduct 
    an arm's-length test on any of YUSCO's sales.
        We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market 
    customers. We made deductions for inland freight and two post-sale 
    price adjustments (these adjustments were originally reported as a 
    quantity discount and sales promotion discount). In addition, we made 
    circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments for differences in direct 
    selling expenses (i.e., credit, warranty, and a document handling fee) 
    incurred on U.S. and home market sales, where appropriate. In 
    accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
    costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    
    Tung Mung
    
        For Tung Mung's home market sales of products that were above COP, 
    we based NV on prices to home market customers. We made a deduction for 
    inland freight and two post-sale price adjustments (these adjustments 
    were originally reported as a quantity discount and other discounts) 
    pursuant to Section 351.401(c) of the Department's Regulations. We 
    calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market customers. In 
    addition, we made COS adjustments for differences in direct selling 
    expenses (i.e., credit and warranty expenses), where appropriate. In 
    accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
    costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    
    Chang Mien
    
        For Chang Mien's home market sales of products that were above the 
    COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers.
        We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market 
    customers. We made a deduction for inland freight. In its December 4, 
    1998 submission, petitioners argued that the Department should deny 
    Chang Mien's reported home market credit expense and reclassify Chang 
    Mien's claimed advertising expenses as indirect selling expenses. For 
    the preliminary determination, the Department has accepted Chang Mien's 
    home market credit expenses and continued to classify Chang Mien's 
    advertising expenses in both the U.S. and home market as direct selling 
    expenses. We made COS adjustments for direct selling expenses (i.e., 
    credit, warranty, advertising, and bank charges), where appropriate. In 
    accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
    costs and added U.S. packing costs.
    
    Price-to-CV Comparisons
    
        In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV 
    on CV if we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar 
    merchandise. We made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 
    773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act. For these EP comparisons, we made COS 
    adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
    U.S. direct selling expenses.
    
    Currency Conversion
    
        We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
    exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
    by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the 
    Tariff Act.
    
    Critical Circumstances
    
        On October 30, 1998, petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable 
    basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
    respect to imports of SSSS from Taiwan. In accordance with 19 CFR 
    351.206(c)(2)(i), since this allegation was filed at least 20 days 
    prior to the Department's preliminary determination, we must issue our 
    preliminary critical circumstances determination not later than the 
    preliminary determination.
        Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that if a petitioner alleges 
    critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is 
    a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a 
    history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in 
    the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or
    
    [[Page 108]]
    
    (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was 
    imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
    subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
    likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there 
    have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively 
    short period.
        To determine that there is a history of dumping of the subject 
    merchandise, the Department normally considers evidence of an existing 
    antidumping duty order on SSSS in the United States or elsewhere to be 
    sufficient. Petitioners did not provide any information indicating a 
    history of dumping of SSSS from Taiwan. Furthermore, we investigated 
    the existence of antidumping duty orders on SSSS from Taiwan in the 
    United States or elsewhere, and did not find any. We were also unable 
    to find other information that would have indicated a history of 
    dumping of SSSS from Taiwan.
        In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that 
    the exporter was selling subject merchandise at less than fair value 
    and thereby causing material injury, the Department normally considers 
    estimated dumping margins of 25 percent or greater for EP sales to 
    impute knowledge of dumping and of resultant material injury. In this 
    investigation, we have not established calculated estimated dumping 
    margins of 25 percent or greater. Based on these facts, we determine 
    that the first criterion for ascertaining whether critical 
    circumstances exist is not satisfied. Therefore, we preliminarily 
    determine that there is no reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
    critical circumstances exist with respect to exports of SSSS from 
    Taiwan by respondents (see, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination 
    of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
    Determination: Collated Roofing Nails From Korea, 62 FR 25895, 25898 
    (May 12, 1997)). We have not analyzed the shipment data for respondents 
    to examine whether imports of SSSS have been massive over a relatively 
    short period. Because we do not find that critical circumstances exist 
    for all other respondents, we determine that critical circumstances do 
    not exist for companies covered by the ``All Others'' rate. We will 
    make a final determination concerning critical circumstances when we 
    make our final determination in this investigation, if that final 
    determination is affirmative.
    
    Verification
    
        As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we will verify all 
    information relied upon in making our final determination.
    
    All Others Rate
    
        In accordance with Section 735(c)(5) of the Act, the estimated all-
    others rate shall be an amount equal to the calculated estimated 
    weight-average dumping margins established for producers individually 
    investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any 
    margins determined entirely under section 776. As a result, the all-
    others rate is 2.94 percent.
    
    Suspension of Liquidation
    
        In accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act, we are 
    directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all 
    imports of subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from 
    warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
    notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct the U.S. Customs 
    Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
    weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the export price, as 
    indicated below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will 
    remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping 
    margins are as follows:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-average
                    Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chang Mien...........................................                .57
    Tung Mung............................................                .07
    YUSCO................................................               2.94
    All Others...........................................               2.94
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ITC Notification
    
        In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have 
    notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is 
    affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after 
    the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final 
    determination whether imports of SSSS are materially injuring, or 
    threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
    
    Public Comment
    
        Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than fifty days 
    after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, 
    limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than fifty-five days 
    after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. A list 
    of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
    any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
    to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 
    774 of the Tariff Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to 
    afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised 
    in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any hearing will be held 
    fifty-seven days after publication of this notice at the U.S. 
    Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
    Washington, D.C. 20230, at a time and location to be determined. 
    Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the 
    hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
        Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
    if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
    Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
    1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
    Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone 
    number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
    be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative 
    presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief, and may 
    make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's 
    rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). We intend to issue our final 
    determination in this investigation no later than 135 days after 
    publication of this notice.
        This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
    sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
    
        Dated: December 17, 1998.
    Richard W. Moreland,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 98-34462 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
1/4/1999
Published:
01/04/1999
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
98-34462
Dates:
January 4, 1999.
Pages:
101-108 (8 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-583-831
PDF File:
98-34462.Pdf