02-17198. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (“SSSS”) from Taiwan in response to requests from respondents Yieh United Steel Corporation (“YUSCO”), Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. (“Tung Mung”) and Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (“Chia Far”), and petitioners¹ who requested a review of YUSCO, Tung Mung, and Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Company Ltd. (“Ta Chen”), Chia Far and any of their affiliates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213. This review covers imports of subject merchandise from YUSCO, Tung Mung, Ta Chen, and Chia Far. The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001.

Our preliminary results of review indicate that Chia Far has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”) during the POR and that YUSCO did not make any sales below normal value during the POR. Additionally, Tung Mung did not participate in this review. Therefore, we are applying an adverse facts available (“AFA”) rate to all sales and entries of Tung Mung's subject merchandise during the POR. Lastly, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to Ta Chen, because the evidence on the record indicates that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on entries of Chia Far's and Tung Mung's merchandise during the POR, in accordance with the Department's regulations found at 19 CFR 351.106 and 351.212(b).

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding should also submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

July 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita (Ta Chen); Cheryl Werner (Chia Far); Mesbah Motamed (YUSCO), Marlene Hewitt (Tung Mung); or Bob Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: [phone] or [phone], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended the (“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. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

Background

On July 2, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan. See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 66 FR 34910 (July 2, 2001), as corrected, 66 FR 38455 (July 24, 2001). On July 30, 2001, YUSCO, Tung Mung and Chia Far, producers and exporters of subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), requested an administrative review of the antidumping order covering the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. On July 31, 2001, petitioners requested a review of YUSCO, Tung Mung, Ta Chen, and Chia Far and its affiliates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b). On August 20, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of this order. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 43570 (August 20, 2001).

On August 30, 2001, the Department issued questionnaires to YUSCO, Tung Mung, Chia Far and Ta Chen. On September 20, 2001, Ta Chen informed the Department that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and requested an exemption from answering the questionnaire. On October 17, 2001, we sent a letter to Tung Mung explaining that we had not received its questionnaire response, and that, in the absence of a complete questionnaire response, we would be forced to apply facts available, as directed by section 776(a) of the Act. On October 19, 2001, Tung Mung submitted a letter responding that it would no longer be participating in this administrative review.

On October 4, 2001, YUSCO submitted its Section A questionnaire response. On November 13, 2001, YUSCO submitted its Sections B through D questionnaire response. On March 22, 2002, we issued a supplemental Sections A through C questionnaire to YUSCO and on April 4, 2002, we issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire to YUSCO. On April 16, 2002, YUSCO submitted its supplemental Sections A through C questionnaire response and on April 19, 2002, YUSCO submitted its supplemental Section D questionnaire response. On April 26, 2002, we issued a second supplemental Sections A through D questionnaire to YUSCO. On May 6, 2002, YUSCO submitted its second supplemental Sections A through D questionnaire response.

On October 4, 2001, Chia Far submitted its Section A questionnaire response. On October 29, 2001, Chia Far submitted its Sections B and C questionnaire responses. We issued a supplemental Section A through C questionnaire to Chia Far on January 3, 2002. On January 4, 2002, Chia Far submitted its Section D questionnaire response. On January 31, 2002, Chia Far submitted its supplemental Sections A through C questionnaire response. On March 13, 2002, we issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire to Chia Far. On April 5, 2002, we issued a second supplemental Sections A through C questionnaire to Chia Far. On April 5, 2002, Chia Far submitted its supplemental Section D questionnaire response. On April 22, 2002, we issued a second supplemental Section D questionnaire to Chia Far. On April 22, 2002, Chia Far submitted its second supplemental Sections A through C questionnaire response, and on May 3, 2002, submitted its second supplemental Section D questionnaire response.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit. On March 6, 2002, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review to July 1, 2002. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 10134 (March 6, 2002).

The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and cost information provided by YUSCO from May 13, 2002 to May 21, 2002, including an examination of relevant sales, cost, and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. We verified sales and cost information provided by Chia Far from May 22, 2002 to May 31, 2002. In addition, we verified the constructed export price (“CEP”) sales information provided by Chia Far on behalf of Lucky Medsup, Inc. (“Lucky Medsup”), its affiliated reseller in the United States, from June 13, 2002 to June 14, 2002. Our verification results are outlined in the public version of the verification reports and are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Scope of the Review

For purposes of this review, 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 order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81 , 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 covered by this order is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this order 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 HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

In response to comments by interested parties, the Department also determined that certain specialty stainless steel products were excluded from the scope of the investigation and the subsequent order. These excluded products are described below.

Flapper valve steel 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 is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 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 less than 0.002 or greater than 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 is also excluded from the scope of this order. 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.”²

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. 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.”³

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. 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.”⁴

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., carpet knives).^[5] This steel is similar to AISI grade 420, 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 100 square microns. 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”.⁶

Partial Rescission of Review

As noted above, Ta Chen informed the Department that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department subsequently contacted the U.S. Customs Service, had Customs do an inquiry into Ta Chen's exports to the United States during the POR, and reviewed Customs' data. There is no evidence on the record which indicates that Ta Chen made exports of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Ta Chen. See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (Oct. 14, 1997).

Facts Available (“FA”)

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 use facts available in reaching the applicable 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 also the Statement of Administrative Action to the URAA, H. Doc. 103-316 (1994) at 870 (“SAA”) (further discussing the application of adverse facts available).

For the preliminary results of review, in accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for Tung Mung. We confirmed that Tung Mung received the Department's questionnaire. Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, after the Department did not receive a response to its first communication to Tung Mung, it followed up with a letter informing Tung Mung of the potential results if it chose not to cooperate further in the administration of the review. See Letter to Tung Mung from DOC re: Non-response to Questionnaire, dated October 17, 2001. In a letter dated October 19, 2001, Tung Mung responded that it was declining to respond to the questionnaire or participate in the administrative review. Because Tung Mung failed to provide any information on the record for this administrative review, we have no alternative but to apply total facts available to Tung Mung.

As noted above, in selecting facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party, such as Tung Mung, failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. Tung Mung has not acted to the best of its ability in this administrative review, failing to cooperate in any way with the Department. Consistent with Department's practice in cases where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in keeping with section 776(b) of the Act, as adverse facts available, we have applied a margin based on the highest appropriate margin from this or any prior segment of the proceeding. See Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77567 (December 12, 2000).

The Department notes that while the highest margin calculated during this or any prior segment of the proceeding is 34.95 percent, this margin represents a combined rate applied in a channel transaction in the investigation of this proceeding based on middleman dumping by Ta Chen. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan, 64 FR 30592 (June 8, 1999) (“SSSS Investigation”). Where circumstances indicate that a particular margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine another, more appropriate one as facts available. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin for use as adverse facts available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an unusually high margin). Because the middleman dumping calculated margin would be inappropriate, given that the record does not indicate that any of Tung Mung's exports to the United States during the POR involved a middleman, the Department has applied the highest margin from any segment of the proceeding for a producer's direct exports to the U.S. without middleman dumping, which is 21.10 percent.

The rate of 21.10 percent, was applied in the first administrative review for another respondent and constitutes secondary information. Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department, to the extent practicable, to corroborate secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (Nov. 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins. Therefore, unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling expenses, the only source of dumping margins is the calculated dumping margins from previous administrative determinations.

The Department corroborated the information used to establish the 21.10 percent rate in the first administrative review, finding the information to be both reliable and relevant. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682, (February 13, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 28. Nothing on the record of this instant administrative review calls into question the reliability of this rate. Furthermore, with respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department has determined that there is no evidence on the record which would render the application of this margin inappropriate. Therefore, we consider the margin relevant to this proceeding as well. Thus, we find that the rate of 21.0 percent from the first administrative review is sufficiently corroborated for purposes of this current administrative review.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether respondent's sales of subject merchandise from Taiwan to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared the export price (“EP”) and CEP, as appropriate, to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP and CEP transactions.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, supra, and sold by YUSCO and Chia Far in the home market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSSS products sold in the United States. We have relied on nine product characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product: grade, hot or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge. 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 August 30, 2001 antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (“CV”), as appropriate. We made corrections to reported U.S. and home market sales data based on the Department's findings at verification, as appropriate.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.

YUSCO

For purposes of this administrative review, YUSCO classified its sales as EP sales, stating that “(it) sold subject merchandise directly to an unaffiliated importer in the United States during the POR.” Therefore, we are using EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, outside the United States by YUSCO to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for inland freight (from YUSCO's plant to the port of export), international freight, marine insurance, container handling fees, certification handling fees, brokerage and handling, imputed credit, and packing in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. We made no changes or corrections to the U.S. sales information reported by YUSCO as a result of our verification findings in the calculation of YUSCO's dumping margin.

Chia Far

For purposes of this review, Chia Far has classified its sales as either EP or CEP sales. We are using EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act for sales of subject merchandise that were sold, prior to importation, outside the United States by Chia Far to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We based EP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses including: foreign inland freight from the plant to port of exportation, brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, marine insurance, container handling charges, harbor construction fees. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

We are using CEP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act for sales of subject merchandise that were sold, after importation, by Lucky Medsup, Chia Far's affiliated reseller, to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We based CEP on the packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses including: foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling, container handling charges, harbor construction fees, other U.S. transportation expenses and U.S. duty. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses and indirect selling expenses.

We made adjustments to Chia Far's reported inventory carrying costs to exclude expenses attributed to the time period between the date of shipment and the date of arrival in the United States. See, Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Review for Stainless Steel Strip in Coils From Taiwan-Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (July 1, 2002) (“Chia Far Preliminary Analysis Memo”) and Verification of Sales and Cost for Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. in the 2nd Antidumping Administrative Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan (July 1, 2002) (“Chia Far Verification Report”). In addition, we revised the U.S. sales listing, based on our findings at verification, to account for CEP sales made by Lucky Medsup during the POR of subject merchandise which was rejected by the customer and re-sold after the POR. See Chia Far Preliminary Analysis Memo (July 1, 2002) and Verification of CEP Sales Made by Lucky Medsup, Inc in the 2nd Antidumping Administrative Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan (“Chia Far CEP Verification Report”) (July 1, 2002).

We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home market.

Normal Value

1. Home Market Viability

For YUSCO and Chia Far, we compared the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product sold in Taiwan was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis for NV. Because the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise for both companies, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based the determination of NV upon the home market sales of the foreign like product. Thus, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Taiwan, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the CEP or NV sales, as appropriate.

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-Constructed Value (“CV”) Comparisons” sections of this notice.

2. Arm's-Length Test

YUSCO reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated end users and distributors/retailers. Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's length were excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing, but including the alloy surcharge. Where prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the affiliated party, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where no affiliated customer ratio could be calculated because identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's length and, therefore, excluded them from our analysis. See, e.g., 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 comparisons to the next most similar model. Certain of YUSCO's affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's length test. Therefore, we have considered the downstream sales from these customers to the first unaffiliated customer.

3. Cost of Production (“COP”) Analysis

YUSCO

Because the Department determined that YUSCO made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the subject merchandise in the previous administrative review of YUSCO and therefore excluded such sales from normal value, the Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that YUSCO made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in this administrative review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated a cost of production inquiry to determine whether YUSCO made home market sales during the POR at prices below their respective COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

Chia Far

Because we found that Chia Far did not act to the best of its ability in providing information to the Department in the previous administrative review of Chia Far, we applied total adverse facts available, which included a finding on that basis that Chia Far's sales were made below cost. The application of total adverse facts available applies to all claims on the record, including claims of below-cost sales. Thus, we discounted all of Chia Far's home market sales in the previous review. Section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act states that if the Department has disregarded sales in a previous review because of a finding that those sales were made below cost, the Department will have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales were made below cost. As a result, the Department initiated a cost of production inquiry to determine whether Chia Far made home market sales during the POR at prices below their respective COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of YUSCO's and Chia Far's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), including interest expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by YUSCO in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For the preliminary results of review, we revised the COP information submitted by Chia Far as follows: 1) We revised G&A expense to exclude unrealized foreign exchange-rate and translation gains and losses; and 2) we revised interest expenses to exclude dividend income as an offset to interest expense. See Chia Far Preliminary Analysis Memo (July 1, 2002) and Chia Far Verification Report (July 1, 2002).

We made no changes to the COP information provided to conduct the cost test.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP for YUSCO and Chia Far, adjusted where appropriate, to their home market sales of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (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 accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. We compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product within an extended period of time are at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because 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 extended period 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) within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we used POR average costs, 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. As a result, we disregarded such below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales from our analysis for YUSCO and Chia Far. For those sales of subject merchandise for which there were no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EP or CEP to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated YUSCO's and Chia Far's constructed value (“CV”) based on the sum of their cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, including interest expenses, and profit. We calculated the COPs included in the calculation of CV as noted above in the “Calculation of COP” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by YUSCO and Chia Far in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the actual weighted-average home market direct and indirect selling expenses. For CV, we made the same adjustments described in the COP section above.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

YUSCO

For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers and those affiliated customer sales which passed the arm's length test. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

We calculated NV based on the home market prices to unaffiliated home market customers. Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, warranty expenses, and movement expenses (e.g., inland freight from plant to customer) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale observation resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of manufacturing (“COM”) of the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.

We adjusted YUSCO's reported inventory carrying costs and credit expenses to account for an error in the short-term interest rate discovered at verification. See, Verification of Sales and Cost for Yieh United Steel Corporation in the 2nd Antidumping Administrative Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan (“YUSCO Verification Report”), dated July 1, 2002 and Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Review for Stainless Steel Strip in Coils From Taiwan- Yieh United Steel Corporation (“YUSCO Preliminary Analysis Memo”), dated July 1, 2002. Additionally, we discovered at verification that YUSCO could not support the reported date of payment for downstream sales of its affiliate, Yieh Mau Corporation (“Yieh Mau”). Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a), as partial facts available, we have assigned to Yieh Mau's downstream sales a weighted-average payment date derived from YUSCO's sales to unaffiliated customers, and adjusted Yieh Mau's reported credit expenses accordingly. See YUSCO Verification Report and YUSCO Analysis Memo. We recalculated credit expenses for those YUSCO sales with missing payment and shipment dates. For sales with missing payment dates, the Department set the date of payment as July 1, 2002, the date of the preliminary results. See YUSCO Analysis Memo. Additionally, we recalculated credit expenses for those YUSCO sales with missing shipment dates. For missing shipment dates, the Department set the shipment date as invoice date because invoice most closely approximates shipment date. See YUSCO Analysis Memo.

Chia Far

For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on the prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. Where appropriate, we deducted movement expenses and direct selling expenses, and added U.S. direct selling expenses (credit) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

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 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 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 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 Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from YUSCO and Chia Far about the marketing stages involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by YUSCO and Chia Far for each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that are different for different categories of sales, the functions and activities should be dissimilar.

In the present review, neither YUSCO nor Chia Far requested a LOT adjustment. To determine whether an adjustment was necessary, in accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and home markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.

YUSCO

In the home market (“HM”), YUSCO reported one level of trade. See November 13, 2001 Questionnaire Response from YUSCO, at B-25. YUSCO sold through one channel of distribution in the HM. For these HM customers, YUSCO provided the following selling functions: inland freight, warranty services, and technical advice. Because there is only one sales channel involving similar functions for all sales, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.

For the U.S. market, YUSCO reported one level of trade. See November 13, 2001 Questionnaire Response from YUSCO, at C-21-22. YUSCO sold through one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: to an unaffiliated local distributor. For U.S. sales, YUSCO provided the following selling functions: arranging freight and delivery; invoicing; and packing. YUSCO did not incur any expenses in the United States for its U.S. sales. Because there is only one sales channel in the United States, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the United States.

Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales in the HM and U.S. market, we preliminarily determine that the sales in the HM and U.S. market were made at the same LOT. Despite the existence of certain additional selling functions (i.e., general consultation of technical advise and warranty services) performed by YUSCO for its HM sales, no significant difference exists in the selling functions performed in the HM and U.S. market. Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not warranted.

Chia Far

For its home market sales, Chia Far reported one channel of distribution, direct sales from inventory, and two customer categories, unaffiliated end users and unaffiliated distributors. For HM sales to both distributors and end-users, Chia Far performed many of the same major selling functions, including arranging freight and delivery, general technical and quality claim assistance (Chia Far stated that both were insignificant and therefore reported as indirect selling expenses), as well as price negotiation and customer communication, sample analysis, and after-sale processing at the customer's request. Therefore, based on Chia Far's selling functions performed for each type of customer, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.

For its U.S. sales, Chia Far reported two channels of distribution: EP sales made to order; and CEP sales made to order; and one customer category: unaffiliated distributors for both EP sales and CEP sales. Chia Far sold directly to unaffiliated distributors and, for its CEP sales, sold through Lucky Medsup, an affiliated U.S. company, which then sold to unaffiliated distributors in the United States. We examined the claimed selling functions performed by Chia Far for all U.S. sales. Chia Far provided the same level of the following services for both its sales made directly to the unaffiliated U.S. customer (EP sales) and sales made to Lucky Medsup (CEP sales) in the United States: arranging inland freight to the port and delivery, packing, processing inquiries and purchase orders, invoicing, and extending credit. For EP sales, Chia Far provided additional services including international freight, marine insurance, and banking charges.

In order to determine whether NV was established at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chains of distribution between Chia Far and its home market customers. We compared the selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP transaction, after deductions for economic activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, to determine if the home market level of trade constituted a different level of trade than the CEP level of trade. Chia Far did not request a CEP offset. Nonetheless, in accordance with the 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 to determine whether a CEP offset was necessary. For CEP sales, Chia Far provided many of the same selling functions and expenses for its sale to its affiliated U.S. reseller Lucky Medsup as it provided for its home market sales, including price negotiation and customer communication, sample analysis, and inland freight. Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions performed for sales in the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that there is not a significant difference in the selling functions performed in the home market and the U.S. market for CEP sales. Thus, we find that Chia Far's NV and CEP sales were made at the same LOT, and no LOT adjustment or CEP offset need be granted.

For EP sales in the U.S. market, Chia Far provided the same level of the following services for both EP and NV sales: price negotiation and customer communication; processing of customer order; and inland freight. For EP sales, Chia Far did not provide sample analysis during this review, however, this was only a minor difference. Furthermore, Chia Far provided additional services including international freight, marine insurance, and banking charges. Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales in the HM and EP sales in the U.S. market described above, we preliminarily determine that there is not a significant difference in the selling functions performed in the home market and U.S. market and that these sales are made at the same LOT.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use the daily exchange rate in effect on the date of sale in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a “fluctuation.” In accordance with the Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915, 8918 (March 6, 1998), and Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation exists, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001:

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan

Manufacturer/exporter/ reseller	Margin (percent)
YUSCO	0.00
Chia Far	1.01
Tung Mung	21.10

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment

Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has calculated an assessment rate applicable to all appropriate entries. We calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value, or entered quantity, as appropriate, of the examined sales for that importer. Upon completion of this review, where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.

Cash Deposit

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a particular product is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (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, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) 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) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 21.10 percent, which is the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, that continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: July 1, 2002.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Footnotes

1.  Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation (formerly Armco, Inc.), J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, Butler-Armco Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC.

2.  “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company.

3.  “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

4.  “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

5.  This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only.

6.  “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.