[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59527-59530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29544]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-830]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Canada
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Ludwig or Helen Kramer, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3833 or (202) 482-0405, respectively.
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to
[[Page 59528]]
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 of Commerce (``Department'') regulations are to the
regulations at 19 CFR Part 351, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
(``SSPC'') from Canada 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 margin of sales at LTFV is shown in the
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
On April 20, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty
investigations of imports of stainless steel plate in coils from
Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan (Notice
of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan
(63 FR 20580, April 27, 1998)). 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. Petitioners (Armco, Inc., J&L
Specialty Steel, Inc., Lukens, Inc., and North American Stainless)
filed comments on May 8, 1998, stating that while they believed the
scope of the investigations was accurate, they wished to clarify
certain issues regarding product coverage. These comments did not
affect the product coverage. On May 15, 1998, the United States
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of its
affirmative preliminary injury determination in this case. During May
1998, the Department requested information from the U.S. Embassy in
Canada to identify producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.
During May 1998, the Department also requested and received comments
from petitioners and two potential respondents, Atlas Stainless Steels,
a division of Sammi Atlas, Inc. of Canada (``Atlas''), and ALZ, N.V. of
Belgium, regarding the model matching criteria. On May 27, 1998, the
Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Atlas.
On June 24, 1998, the Department received Atlas's response to
Section A of the questionnaire. We received Atlas's responses to
Sections B and C of the questionnaire on July 10, 1998. Petitioners
filed comments on Atlas's responses to Section A on July 7, 1998, and
to Sections B and C on July 24, 1998. On July 29, 1998, petitioners
made a timely request that the Department initiate a cost investigation
to determine whether respondent made home market sales at prices below
the cost of production during the POI. We issued a supplemental
questionnaire for Sections A, B, and C on August 5, 1998 and received a
response on August 19, 1998. On August 14, 1998, the Department
notified Atlas of its determination under section 773(b) of the Act
that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that it made
sales of the subject merchandise in Canada at prices below its cost of
production (COP), and gave Atlas until September 4, 1998, to respond to
section D (the cost questionnaire), which was included in the
Department's questionnaire issued on May 27, 1998. On September 4,
1998, Atlas declined to respond to section D, citing as reasons the
effort, time and expense required.
On July 28, 1998, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the
petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary
determination for thirty days. The Department determined that these
investigations are extraordinarily complicated and that additional time
is necessary beyond the thirty days requested by petitioners for the
Department to make its preliminary determination. The decision to
postpone the preliminary determination until October 27, 1998 was made
on August 14, and published on August 21, 1998. (See Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils from Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea
and Taiwan; Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 63 FR 44840). On August 20, 1998,
petitioners amended the antidumping duty petition to include Allegheny
Ludlum Corporation as an additional petitioner.
Scope of Investigation
For purposes of these investigations, the product covered 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 this petition 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.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05,
7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55,
7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10,
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 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, 7220.90.00.10,
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 merchandise under investigation is
dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 1997, through
December 31, 1997.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner, or in the form
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or provides information that cannot be verified, the
Department shall, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act,
use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Although Atlas did not indicate any inability to respond to the
Department's COP questionnaire, it chose not to do so. Because Atlas
has refused to provide cost information, we must base its margin
entirely on the facts otherwise available.
Atlas submitted responses to sections A, B, and C of the
questionnaire, and to a supplemental questionnaire, but declined to
respond to the section D (cost) questionnaire on the grounds of time,
effort and expense. As a result, the Department is unable to determine
whether Atlas's sales in Canada were at prices above COP and provide an
appropriate basis for determining normal values. Without accurate COP
[[Page 59529]]
and constructed value (CV) data, we cannot perform a reliable sales-
below-cost test and LTFV analysis. Consequently, under section 776(a)
of the Act, the Department must use facts otherwise available in making
its determination.
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 a party has failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information. See the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) at 870.
Such adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from
the petition. To determine whether the respondent ``cooperated'' by
``acting to the best of its ability'' under section 776(b), the
Department considers, among other facts, the accuracy and completeness
of submitted information and whether the respondent has hindered the
calculation of accurate dumping margins. See, e.g., Certain Welded
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820
(October 16, 1997); Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 42823-42824 (August
11, 1998).
Atlas's refusal to reply to the Department's requests for cost
information demonstrates that Atlas has failed to act to the best of
its ability in this investigation. Thus, the Department has determined
that, in selecting among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted with regard to Atlas. Consistent with Department
practice in cases in which a respondent fails to cooperate to the best
of its ability by refusing to respond to an entire section of the
questionnaire, and pursuant to section 776(b)(1) of the Act, as adverse
facts available we have applied a margin based on the highest margin
alleged in the petition. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars
From Turkey, 62 FR 9737-9738 (March 4, 1997).
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is described in the SAA (at 870) 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.''
The SAA further provides that ``corroborate'' means simply 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, to the extent practicable, the Department will
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
During the Department's pre-initiation analysis of the petition, we
reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition,
to the extent appropriate information was available for this purpose
(e.g., import statistics, foreign market research reports, and data
from U.S. producers). See Notice of Initiation and ``Import
Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist,'' (April 20,
1998). The estimated dumping margins were based on a comparison of two
home market sales made by Atlas to steel service centers to two U.S.
sales, as reported by domestic industry sources. The Department
attempted to corroborate all of the secondary information from which
the margin was calculated by reviewing all of the data presented and by
requesting clarification and confirmation from petitioners and their
sources as needed. See Memorandum to the File from Linda Ludwig and
Marguerite Trossevin on April 17, 1998 Telephone Call to Market
Research Firm Regarding the AD Petition for Antidumping Investigation
of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Canada (April 20, 1998) and
Memorandum to the File from Linda Ludwig on the same date. In addition,
for purposes of this preliminary determination, the Department compared
the export prices alleged by petitioners based on price quotations
obtained from unaffiliated first purchasers with the average unit
values of U.S. imports classified under the appropriate HTS number
during the same months as the U.S. sales.
We observed that these values were almost identical for the first
sale, and very similar for the second sale. U.S. official import
statistics are sources which we consider to require no further
corroboration by the Department. See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails From the People's
Republic of China, 62 FR 51410, 51412 (October 1, 1997). See Memorandum
to the File from Helen M. Kramer on Corroboration of Petitioners'
Estimated Dumping Margins (October 14, 1998). However, the Department
was provided no information by the respondents or other interested
parties, and is aware of no other independent sources of information
that would enable it to corroborate home market prices further for this
preliminary determination. The implementing regulation to section 776
of the Act, 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.'' We note also 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. Based on the above, we find
that the estimated margins set forth in the petition have probative
value.
The All-Others Rate
The foreign manufacturer/exporter in this investigation is being
assigned a dumping margin on the basis of facts otherwise available.
Section 735(c)(5) of the Act provides that, where the dumping margins
established for all exporters and producers individually investigated
are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department
may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others
rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated,
including weight averaging the zero, de minimis, and the margins based
on facts available. In this case, the margin assigned to the only
company investigated is based on adverse facts available. Therefore,
consistent with the SAA, at 873, we are using an alternative method. As
our alternative, we are basing the all others rate on a simple average
of the margins in the petition. As a result, the all others rate is
11.10 percent.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the
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 Customs Service to require a
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the percentage margin,
as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The dumping
margin is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter/manufacturer percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Stainless Steel (Sammi Atlas)........................ 15.35
All Others................................................. 11.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The all others rate, which we derived from the average of the
margins
[[Page 59530]]
calculated in the petition, applies to all entries of subject
merchandise other than those exported by the named respondent.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,
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 these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material
injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no
later than November 16, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later than
November 23, 1998. A list of authorities used and an executive summary
of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In
accordance with section 774 of the 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, the hearing
will be held on December 15, 1998, time and room to be determined, at
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the
time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled
time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed.
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If
this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final
determination within 75 days after the date of signing of this notice.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 27, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-29544 Filed 11-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
