[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10847-10849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5602]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-824]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sunkyu Kim or Everett Kelly, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2613 or (202) 482-4194, 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 wire rod (``SSWR'')
from Germany 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 are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''
section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation on August 19, 1997 (see
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless
Steel Wire Rod from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden and
Taiwan (62 FR 45224, August 26, 1997) (``Notice of Initiation'')), the
following events have occurred:
On September 15, 1997, the United States International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative
preliminary injury determination in this case (see ITC Investigation
No. 731-TA-770).
In September 1997, the Department obtained information from the
U.S. Embassy in Germany identifying Krupp Edelstahlprofile and BGH
Edelstahl Freital GmbH as the potential producers and/or exporters of
the subject merchandise to the United States. Based on this
information, on September 19, 1997, the Department issued the
antidumping duty questionnaire to the following producers/exporters of
SSWR to the United States: Krupp Edelstahlprofile GmbH and Krupp Hoesch
Steel Products (collectively ``Krupp'') and BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH
(``BGH Edelstahl'').
On October 23, 1997, BGH Edelstahl informed the Department, via
facsimile message, that it would not respond to the Department's
antidumping questionnaire.
On October 24, 1997, Krupp submitted its response to Section A of
the questionnaire. Subsequently, on October 27, 1997, Krupp informed
the Department that it would not respond to Sections B, C, and D of the
Department's antidumping questionnaire.
On December 11, 1997, petitioners made a timely request that the
Department postpone the preliminary determination in this investigation
and the companion investigations of SSWR from Italy, Japan, Korea,
Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan to February 25, 1998. We did so on December
16, 1997, in accordance with section 733(c)(1) of the Act (see Notice
of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Steel
Wire Rod from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan,
62 FR 66849, 66850 (December 22, 1997)).
Scope of Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, SSWR comprises products that
are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled
rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may
also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime, or oxalate.
SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less
of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other
elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-
rolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold
in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR
sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed
and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or
small-diameter bar.
The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217
inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is
produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing
machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in
the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter.
Two stainless steel grades, SF20T and K-M35FL, are excluded from the
scope of the investigation. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades
is as follows:
[[Page 10848]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF20T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon............................ 0.05 max............. Chromium............. 19.00/21.00.
Manganese......................... 2.00 max............. Molybdenum........... 1.50/2.50.
Phosphorous....................... 0.05 max............. Lead................. Added (0.10/0.30).
Sulfur............................ 0.15 max............. Tellurium............ Added (0.03 min).
Silicon........................... 1.00 max.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-M35FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon............................ 0.015 max............ Nickel............... 0.30 max.
Silicon........................... 0.70/1.00............ Chromium............. 12.50/14.00.
Manganese......................... 0.40 max............. Lead................. 0.10/0.30.
Phosphorous....................... 0.04 max............. Aluminum............. 0.20/0.35.
Sulfur............................ 0.03 max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and
7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 1996, through June
30, 1997.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of SSWR by Krupp and BGH Edelstahl to
the United States were made at less than fair value, we compare the
export price or constructed export price to the normal value. Because
Krupp responded to our questionnaire only in part (i.e., Section A) and
BGH Edelstahl did not respond to the questionnaire at all, we were
unable to calculate LTFV margins for this preliminary determination
using information submitted by the respective companies. Therefore, in
accordance with section 776 of the Act, our results are based on facts
otherwise available.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, (3) significantly impedes a determination under
the antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination (subject
to subsections 782(d) and (e)). As discussed above, both Krupp and BGH
Edelstahl failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires.
Accordingly, we have determined that use of facts available is
appropriate for both respondents. With respect to Krupp, we note that
we cannot perform an antidumping analysis with the Section A response
that Krupp did provide. This limited information is so incomplete that
it cannot, for purposes of section 782(e)(3), ``serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination.''
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse inferences
may be used for a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information (see
also the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA''), accompanying the
URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 870). Given their
statements of refusal to comply with the Department's requests for
information, Krupp and BGH Edelstahl have clearly failed to cooperate
to the best of their ability in this investigation. Therefore, the
Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted with
respect to both companies.
Consistent with our practice in cases where respondents' refusal to
participate precludes us from conducting our LTFV analysis, as facts
otherwise available, we are basing Krupp's and BGH Edelstahl's margins
on information in the petition. Section 776(c) provides that, when the
Department relies on secondary information (e.g., the petition) as the
facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable,
corroborate that information from independent sources that are
reasonably at its disposal. We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of
the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis of
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 August 19,
1997, ``Import Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist
(``Initiation Checklist'').
For purposes of the preliminary determination, we were only able to
corroborate part of the information in the petition. We reexamined the
export price data provided in the petition in light of information
obtained during the investigation and, to the extent that it could be
corroborated, found that it continues to be of probative value.
However, the Department was provided no useful information by the
respondents or other interested parties, and is aware of no other
independent sources of information, that would enable it to further
corroborate the remaining components of the margin calculation in the
petition (as adjusted by the Department). See the February 11, 1998,
Memorandum to the File. 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.
A. Krupp and BGH Edelstahl
Consistent with Department practice, as facts otherwise available,
the Department is assigning to Krupp and BGH Edelstahl the highest
margin alleged in the petition for any German producer (as adjusted by
the Department), which is 21.28 percent (see Initiation Checklist and
the Notice of Initiation for a discussion of the margin calculations in
the petition and the Department's recalculations).
B. The All-Others Rate
All foreign manufacturers/exporters in this investigation are being
assigned dumping margins 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, the Department may use any
reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for
exporters and producers not individually investigated, including
averaging the estimated weighted-
[[Page 10849]]
average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers
individually investigated. This provision contemplates that we weight
average the facts-available margins to establish the all-others rate.
Where the data is not available to weight average the facts-available
rates, the SAA, at 873, provides that we may use other reasonable
methods.
Inasmuch as we do not have the data necessary to weight average the
respondents' facts available margins, we are basing the all-others rate
on a simple average of the margins in the petition (as adjusted by the
Department). As a result the all-others rate is 19.45 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 amount by which the
NV exceeds the export price, as indicated in the chart below. These
suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until
further notice. The dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter/manufacturer percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krupp Edelstahl profile GmbH, Krupp Hoesch Steel Products. 21.28
BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH................................ 21.28
All-Others................................................ 19.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The all-others rate, which we derived from the average of the margins
calculated in the petition, applies to all entries of subject
merchandise other than those exported by the named respondents.
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 April 9, 1998, and rebuttal briefs, no later than April 16,
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 April 20, 1998, time and room to be determined, at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 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 thirty 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 not later than May 11, 1998.
This determination is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the
Act.
Dated: February 25, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-5602 Filed 3-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
