[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10849-10854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5603]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-469-807]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Wire Rod
From Spain
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Smith or Alexander Amdur,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5193 or (202) 482-5346,
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 (May 19, 1997).
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that stainless steel wire rod (SSWR)
from Spain 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
Since the initiation of this investigation (Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping 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:
In August 1997, the Department issued a cable to the U.S. Embassy
in Spain requesting information identifying potential Spanish producers
and/or exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. We
did not receive a response from the U.S. Embassy in Spain. However,
based on the petition, wherein Roldan, S.A., (Roldan) was the only
producer and/or exporter identified, on September 19, 1997, the
Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Roldan.
Also in September 1997, the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination
in this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-773).
In October 1997, the Department received Roldan's response to
Section A of the questionnaire. Roldan submitted its response to
Sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire in November 1997.
On October 10, 1997, the petitioners in this case (i.e., AL Tech
Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology Corp., Republic Engineered
Steels, Talley Metals Technology, Inc., and United Steelworkers of
America) requested that the Department revise its questionnaire to
obtain information on the actual nickel, chromium, and molybdenum
content for each sale of the SSWR made during the period of
investigation (POI). On October 21, 1997, Roldan requested that the
[[Page 10850]]
Department deny the petitioners' request. The Department, upon
consideration of the comments from all parties on this matter, issued a
memorandum on December 18, 1997, indicating its decision to make no
changes in the model-matching criteria specified in the September 19,
1997, questionnaire (see Memorandum from Team to Holly Kuga, Office
Director, dated December 18, 1997).
On December 11, 1997, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act,
the petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary
determination. We granted this request and, on December 16, 1997, we
postponed the preliminary determination until no later than February
25, 1998 (62 FR 66849, December 22, 1997).
We issued supplemental sections A, B, C, and D questionnaires to
Roldan in December 1997 and received responses to these questionnaires
in January 1998. We issued an additional supplemental section D
questionnaire on February 4, 1998 and received responses to this
questionnaire on February 9, and 13, 1998. Due to time constraints, we
have not used the sales data that was included in Roldan's February 13,
1998 response. However, we will consider this information for the final
determination. Finally, on February 6, and 10, 1998, the petitioners
submitted their comments on Roldan's responses and on issues they
considered relevant to the preliminary determination.
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on February 20, 1998,
Roldan requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. The respondent also requested that
the Department extend provisional measures from a four-month period to
not more than six months pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2), because (1) our preliminary
determination is affirmative, (2) Roldan accounts for a significant
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling
reasons for denial exist, we are granting Roldan'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. See Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Open-End Spun Rayon Singles Yarn From Austria, 62 FR
14399, 14400 (March 26, 1997); see also Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14,
1996).
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 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, the written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The POI is July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of SSWR from Spain to the United States
were made at less than fair value, we compared the Constructed Export
Price (CEP) to the Normal Value (NV), as described in the ``Constructed
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated
weighted-average CEPs 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.'' This issue was
not raised by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended
the definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to
include sales below cost. See Section
[[Page 10851]]
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. Therefore, in this proceeding, when making comparisons in
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products
sold in the home market as described in the ``Scope of Investigation''
section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of
trade, for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the
home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like
product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the
characteristics listed in Sections B and C of our antidumping
questionnaire. We have implemented the Court's decision in this case,
to the extent that the data on the record permitted.
With respect to the characteristics used to make product
comparisons, the Department's questionnaire instructed the respondent
to report the grades of SSWR products it sold during the POI in
accordance with AISI standards. While Roldan reported most of its sales
of SSWR in accordance with AISI standards, certain sales were reported
with non-AISI (or internal) grades in accordance with its sales
accounting system. Therefore, in instances where Roldan has reported a
non-AISI grade (or an internal grade code) for a product that falls
within a single AISI category, we have used the actual AISI grade
rather than the non-AISI grades reported by Roldan for purposes of our
analysis. However, in instances where the chemical content ranges of
reported non-AISI (or an internal grade code) grades are outside the
parameters of an AISI grade, or where Roldan did not report the
chemical content ranges of the non-AISI grades, we have preliminarily
used the grade code reported by Roldan for analysis purposes. We intend
to examine this issue further for the final determination.
Furthermore, with respect to home market sales of non-prime
merchandise made by Roldan during the POI, we excluded these sales from
our preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in
the home market and the fact that no such sales were made in the United
States during the POI, in accordance with our past practice. See, e.g.,
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products,
and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176,
37180 (July 9, 1993). For further discussion, see the Concurrence
Memorandum from The Team to Richard Moreland, dated February 25, 1998
(Concurrence Memorandum).
Cost Reporting
Roldan reported that the cost records it maintains in the ordinary
course of business do not allow it to identify separate costs for each
unique product as defined by the product characteristics identified in
the Department's antidumping questionnaire. Therefore, for some unique
products, Roldan reported the same costs despite the Department's
instruction to assign a single weighted-average cost to each unique
product. Based on Roldan's claim regarding the limitations of its cost
accounting system, we have accepted Roldan's cost reporting methodology
for the preliminary determination. However, we shall examine Roldan's
claims at verification and revisit this issue if necessary for the
final determination. For further discussion, see the Concurrence
Memorandum.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or 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 (SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP, the LOT
is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from
exporter to 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 level of trade
than EP or CEP, we examined 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 an 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 difference in the levels between NV and CEP
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).
Roldan reported all of its sales to the United States during the
POI as EP transactions; however, for the reasons identified in the
``Constructed Export Price'' section of this notice below, we
reclassified Roldan's U.S. sales as CEP sales. We determined that there
was only one LOT in the comparison-market and, therefore, we compared
the CEP LOT to the NV LOT. Roldan did not claim a LOT adjustment.
Nevertheless, we evaluated whether such an adjustment was necessary by
examining Roldan's distribution system, including selling functions,
classes of customers, and selling expenses. After making deductions
pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, we found that the selling
functions performed at the CEP LOT, which included invoicing and
technical support, were sufficiently different from the selling
functions performed at the NV LOT, which included sales negotiation,
customer contact, and technical support, to consider these to be
different levels of trade. We therefore considered whether the
difference in LOT affected price comparability. The effect on price
comparability must be demonstrated by a pattern of consistent price
differences between sales at the two relevant levels of trade in the
comparison market. However, since POI sales of the merchandise under
investigation in the comparison market were at only one LOT, we were
unable to determine whether there was a pattern of consistent price
differences. For further discussion of this issue, see the Concurrence
Memorandum.
We also considered alternative sources of information in accordance
with the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The SAA provides that, ``if information
on the same product and company is not available, the LOT adjustment
may also be based on sales of other products by
[[Page 10852]]
the same company. In the absence of any sales, including those in
recent time periods, to different levels of trade by the exporter or
producer under investigation, Commerce may further consider the selling
expenses of other producers in the foreign market for the same product
or other products.'' SAA at 830. However, we did not have information
on the record that would allow us to examine or apply these alternative
methods for calculating a LOT adjustment.
Since we were unable to quantify a LOT adjustment based on a
pattern of consistent price differences, in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we granted a CEP offset because all of the
comparison sales were at a more advanced level of trade than the sales
to the United States.
Constructed Export Price
Roldan reported all of its U.S. sales as EP transactions. These
sales were made to unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to importation
through Roldan's affiliated U.S. sales entity, Acerinox U.S.A. Roldan
noted that this was the customary commercial channel for these sales
and that the merchandise was shipped directly from the manufacturer to
the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
We examine several factors to determine whether sales made prior to
importation through an affiliated sales agent to an unaffiliated
customer in the United States are EP sales. These factors are (1)
whether the merchandise was shipped directly from the manufacturer to
the unaffiliated U.S. customer; (2) whether the sales follow customary
commercial channels between the parties involved; and (3) whether the
function of the U.S. selling agent is limited to that of a ``processor
of sales-related documentation'' and a ``communication link'' with the
unrelated U.S. buyer. Where the factors indicate that the activities of
the U.S. affiliate are ancillary to the sale (e.g., arranging
transportation or customs clearance), we treat the transactions as EP
sales. Where the U.S. affiliate is substantially involved in the sales
process (e.g., negotiating prices, performing support functions), we
treat the transactions as CEP sales.
Based on our review of Acerinox U.S.A.'s selling activities, we
preliminarily determine that Roldan's sales to the United States
through Acerinox U.S.A. are CEP sales. Although Roldan reported that
the customary commercial channel is to sell the merchandise prior to
importation and ship it directly to the unaffiliated U.S. customers
without having the merchandise enter into the inventory of Acerinox
U.S.A., we preliminarily determined that Acerinox U.S.A. acted as more
than a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a
``communication link'' with the unaffiliated U.S. customers. Acerinox
U.S.A. performed a variety of selling functions in connection with
Roldan's SSWR sales in the United States, including negotiating the
terms of SSWR sales with U.S. customers, reporting to Roldan concerning
market conditions, identifying customers, and coordinating U.S. sales.
Accordingly, for purposes of the preliminary determination, we are
treating the sales in question as CEP transactions. However, we will
examine this issue further at verification. For further discussion of
this issue, see the Concurrence Memorandum.
We calculated CEP in accordance with sections 772(b) of the Act.
Specifically, we calculated CEP based on packed, delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from
the starting price, where appropriate, for discounts. We also made
deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling,
other transportation expenses (i.e., insurance, U.S. Customs duty),
international freight and U.S. inland freight, pursuant to section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic
activity occurring in the United States, including credit expenses and
indirect selling expenses. Because we treated all U.S. sales as CEP
sales, we reduced U.S. starting price by actual selling expenses
incurred by the U.S. affiliate rather than the commissions that Roldan
paid the affiliate (see 19 CFR 351.402(e)). Finally, we made an
adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
After testing home market viability, whether sales to affiliates
were at arm's-length prices, and whether home market sales were at
below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-Price
Comparisons'' section of this notice.
1. 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 Roldan'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)(C) of the Act.
Because Roldan'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.
2. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
Sales to affiliated customers in the home market were not made at
arm's-length prices and thus 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, 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 unaffiliated parties, we
determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's
length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) and 62 FR at 27355 (preamble to the
Department's regulations). 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 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). 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.
3. Cost of Production Analysis
Based on the cost allegation submitted in the petition, the
Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Roldan
had made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing
the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. As a
result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether
Roldan made home market sales during the POI at prices below their
respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See
Notice of Initiation. Before making any fair value comparisons, we
[[Page 10853]]
conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of Roldan's cost of
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts
for home market SG&A expenses and packing costs in accordance with
section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We adjusted Roldan's reported POI costs
to eliminate any adjustment for startup costs because we determined
preliminarily that Roldan identified the startup period incorrectly.
For further discussion of this issue, see the Calculation Memorandum
from Howard Smith to Irene Darzenta dated February 25, 1998 and the
Concurrence Memorandum.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
We used Roldan's submitted POI weighted-average COPs, as adjusted
(see above). We compared the weighted-average COP figures 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 below the COP, we examined whether (1) within an
extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial
quantities, and (2) whether 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 (net of selling expenses and packing) to the home market
prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts,
direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing.
C. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of Roldan'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 Roldan'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''
within an extended period of time in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, 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.
We found that, for certain models of SSWR, more than 20 percent of
Roldan's home market sales within an extended period of time were sold
at prices less than COP. Further, the prices did not provide for the
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore
disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining above-cost
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of SSWR for which there were
no comparable (above-cost) home market sales in the ordinary course of
trade, we compared CEPs to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of
the Act.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated
customers. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting
price for inland freight and direct selling expenses, pursuant to
sections 773(a)(6)(B) and 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, respectively.
We made adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in the
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Also, as explained in the ``Level of Trade'' section of this notice
above, because we determined that NV is at a different LOT than CEP and
we were unable to quantify a LOT adjustment, we granted a CEP offset
because all of the comparison sales were at a more advanced level of
trade than the sales to the United States, pursuant to section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, we deducted home market indirect
selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses.
Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
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.
Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars
unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's
practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate
differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is
defined as the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days.
When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the
benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established
practice. Further, section 773A(b) of the Act directs the Department to
allow a 60-day adjustment period when a currency has undergone a
sustained movement. A sustained movement has occurred when the weekly
average of actual daily rates exceeds the weekly average of benchmark
rates by more than five percent for eight consecutive weeks. For an
explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency
Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996). Such an adjustment period is
required only when a foreign currency is appreciating against the U.S.
dollar. The use of an adjustment period was not warranted in this case
because the Spanish peseta did not undergo a sustained movement during
the POI.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final
determination.
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 weighted-average
amount by which the NV exceeds the constructed export price, as
indicated in the chart 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roldan, S.A............................................... 11.40
All Others................................................ 11.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 10854]]
Administration no later than May 22, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later
than May 29, 1998. A list of authorities used and an executive summary
of issues must 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 June 2, 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 by no later than 135 days after the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register. 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. 98-5603 Filed 3-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
