[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36551-36553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17676]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-475-811]
Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on grain-oriented
electrical steel from Italy in response to a request by the respondent,
Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (``AST''). This covers one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during the
period of review (POR), February 9, 1994, through July 31, 1995.
AST has withdrawn from participation in this review and failed to
submit a response to Section D of the Department's questionnaire. As a
result, we have preliminarily determined to use facts otherwise
available for cash deposit and assessment purposes.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Decker or Robin Gray, Office of Agreements Compliance, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3793.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreement Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
[[Page 36552]]
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping
order on grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy on August 12, 1994
(59 FR 41431). On August 1, 1995, we published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 39150) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping order on grain-oriented electrical steel from
Italy covering the period February 9, 1994, through July 31, 1995.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1)(1995), the respondent, AST,
requested that we conduct an administrative review of its sales. We
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review on September 15, 1995 (60 FR 47930). The
Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with
section 751 of the Act.
Scope of This Review
The product covered by this review is grain-oriented silicon
electrical steel, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing
by weight at least 0.6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent
of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element
in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another
alloy steel, of a thickness of no more than 0.560 millimeters, in coils
of any width, or in straight lengths which are of a width measuring at
least 10 times the thickness, as currently classifiable in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) under item
numbers 7225.10.0030, 7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.8000,
7225.90.0000, 7226.10.1030, 7226.10.5015, 7226.10.5056, 7226.91.7000,
7226.91.8000, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, 7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0000,
7228.30.8050, 7228.60.6000, and 7229.90.1000. Although the HTS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written descriptions of the scope of these proceedings are dispositive.
This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of grain-oriented
electrical steel, and the period February 9, 1994, through July 31,
1995.
Use of Facts Available
We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a)(C) of
the Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for AST because
it significantly impeded this review by not responding to Section D of
the Department's antidumping questionnaire and by refusing to further
participate in the review proceedings. We sent AST a questionnaire on
September 27, 1995, with deadlines of October 25, 1995, for section A
and November 24, 1995, for sections B and C. AST filed timely responses
to these sections. On February 16, 1996, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire on sections A through C. On February 27,
1996, AST requested and was granted a two-week extension for the
submission of a response to the supplemental questionnaire. AST filed
the response to the supplemental questionnaire on the deadline of March
15, 1996.
On January 26, 1996, petitioners (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation,
Armco, Inc., United Steel Workers of America, Butler Armco Independent
Union, and Zanesville Armco Independent) made a sales-below-cost
allegation, which the Department accepted, and a request for cost
information (section D) was issued on February 15, 1996, with a
deadline of March 18, 1996. AST requested an extension for its cost
submission until March 29, 1996, which the Department granted. AST then
requested another extension on its cost submission until April 12,
1996. The Department extended the deadline by five days, making it due
on April 3, 1996. AST did not submit its cost response on that date. On
April 4, 1996, AST filed a letter indicating its withdrawal from
participation in the review.
Necessary information is not available on the record with regard to
AST's cost of production because AST withheld the requested
information. Therefore, we must make our preliminary determination
based on facts otherwise available (section 776(a) of the Act).
Where the Department must rely on the facts available because the
respondent failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, section
776(b) authorizes the Department to use an inference adverse to the
interests of that respondent in choosing the facts available. Section
776(b) also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record. Because information from prior proceedings constitutes
secondary information, section 776(c) provides that the Department
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate''
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value.
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenese, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregared
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review (61 FR 6812, February 22, 1996), where the Department
disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse BIA because the
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin). In this case, we have used the
highest rate from any prior segment of the proceeding, 60.79 percent,
because there is no reliable evidence on the record indicating that the
selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available.
On April 1, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
(61 FR 14291) an extension of time limits for antidumping
administrative reviews, including the review on grain-oriented
electrical steel from Italy. The Department determined it was not
practicable to complete these reviews within the time limits mandated
by the Act. Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, the Department extended the time limits for
this review until September 27, 1996, for the preliminary results of
administrative review, and April 2, 1997 for the final results.
However, the entire amount of additional time is no longer necessary
[[Page 36553]]
because AST has refused to further participate in the review
proceedings.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin
exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Margin
Manufacturer/exporter period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A....................... 2/9/94-
7/31/95 60.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held 44 days after the publication of this notice or the first
workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs which
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not
later than 37 days after the date of publication. The Department will
publish a notice of final results of this administrative review, which
will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
comments.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between export price and NV may vary from the percentage
stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue
assessment instruction directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for reviewed companies will be the rate established in the
final results of this review; (2) for previously investigated companies
not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original less-
than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) for all other
producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate
shall be the rate established in the investigation of sales at less
than fair value, which is 60.79 percent.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of this Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: June 28, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-17676 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
