|
|
|
|
Cryptome DVDs are offered by
Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the
Cryptome 12-and-a-half-years collection of 47,000 files from June 1996
to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to
John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes
all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org,
eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and
23,100 (updated)
pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information
and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere
worldwide without extra cost. |
11 June 1997
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
See related orders:
http://jya.com/ita-china.htm
http://jya.com/ita-russia.htm
http://jya.com/ita-so-africa.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register: June 11, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 31957-31963]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jn97-157]
[[Page 31957]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
International Trade Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine; Notice
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from South Africa; Notice
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the Russian Federation; Notice
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China;
Notice
[[Page 31958]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-823-808]
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nithya Nagarajan, Eugenia Chu, or Yury
Beyzarov, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193, (202) 482-3964, or
(202) 482-2243, respectively.
The 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 Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1, 1996).
Preliminary Determination
We determine preliminarily that certain cut-to-length carbon steel
plate from Ukraine is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of
the Act. The estimated margins are shown in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation (61 FR 64051, December
3, 1996), the following events have occurred:
On December 19, 1996, the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary determination in
this case (see ITC Investigations Nos. 731-TA-753-756). The ITC found
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United
States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from
Ukraine of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate.
The Department issued its antidumping questionnaires to the Embassy
of Ukraine on December 20, 1996, and requested the Embassy to forward
the documents to all Ukrainian producers/exporters of certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate, as well as to manufacturers who produced the
subject merchandise for companies who were engaged in exporting subject
merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. We
requested the Embassy to inform these companies that they must respond
by the due dates. We also sent courtesy copies to the companies whose
names and complete addresses had been identified in the petition.
On January 10, 1997, the Department conducted a questionnaire
presentation in Kiev, Ukraine. Attending the presentation were
officials from the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations,
the Ministry of Industry, and potential producers/exporters of carbon
steel plate.
Also on January 10, 1997, Geneva Steel Company and Gulf States
Steel Company (petitioners), alleged that critical circumstances exist
with respect to imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate
from Ukraine. This issue is addressed in the ``Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances'' section of this notice.
On February 6, 1997, the Department provided interested parties
with the opportunity to submit published, publicly available
information for the Department to consider when valuing the factors of
production and for surrogate country selection. We received comments
from interested parties on February 27, 1997.
In February and March 1997, three Ukrainian companies submitted
responses to sections A, C, and D of the questionnaire. These companies
are: (1) Alchevsk Iron and Steel Works (Alchevsk); (2) Azovstal Iron
and Steel Works (Azovstal); and (3) Ilyich Iron and Steel Works
(Ilyich). All three are Ukrainian producers/exporters of subject
merchandise. We issued supplemental questionnaires to these respondent
companies on March 7, 1997.
After receiving complete questionnaire responses from the three
Ukrainian companies on April 4, 7, and 11, 1997, we determined that one
of the responding companies, Alchevsk, did not sell subject merchandise
to the United States during the POI. Therefore, since Alchevsk is not a
respondent, we need not reach the issue of whether it is entitled to a
separate rate. For more details, see Treatment of Sales Outside the POI
Memorandum, dated May 30, 1997.
Both Azovstal and Ilyich reported that they sold all subject
merchandise through trading companies. In light of this fact, the
Department concluded that clarification was required as to whether
these resellers sold additional subject merchandise (unreported by the
respondents) to the United States. Therefore, in March 1997, we also
issued trading company questionnaires to respondents' resellers. We
received responses in March and April 1997. These responses supported
the information submitted by Azovstal and Ilyich regarding their total
quantity of sales made to the United States through the trading
companies.
Also on March 25, 1997, in response to the Ukrainian government's
comments, dated February 13, 1997, on Ukraine's nonmarket economy (NME)
status, the Department issued the Ukrainian government a questionnaire
to clarify whether Ukraine's NME status should be revoked. We received
these responses on May 1, 1997. This issue is addressed in the
``Nonmarket Economy Country Status'' section of this notice.
Except for the companies identified above, none of the other
companies served with a questionnaire responded to the Department's
original questionnaire.
On April 15, 1997, petitioners submitted a request that the scope
of their petitions be amended to include three items--plate in coil;
plate made to carbon plate specifications regardless of alloy content;
and plate sold to nominal plate thicknesses whose actual thickness is
slightly less than the thickness of plate but within specified
thickness tolerances. With respect to plate in coil, petitioners
maintain that this product has essentially the same physical
characteristics and end uses as cut-to-length plate. Petitioners
further claim that a post-initiation shift has occurred in the pattern
of trade from cut-to-length plate to plate in coil form, and that such
a development indicates that any eventual order on cut-to-length plate
will be susceptible to circumvention. Petitioners submitted additional
information on May 9, 1997. Respondents submitted extensive rebuttal
comments on April 25, 1997, and May 30, 1997.
Because of the very recent submission of arguments on these complex
and technical subjects, we were unable to fully analyze all of the
relevant information on the record prior to this preliminary
determination. In order to fully examine petitioners' claims, we intend
to carefully examine all evidence and argument on the record regarding
this matter and issue a decision as soon as possible.
[[Page 31959]]
On April 30, 1997 (62 FR 23433) we further postponed the
preliminary determination until not later than June 3, 1997.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are hot-rolled iron and
non-alloy steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150
mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm,
not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape,
neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted,
varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and
certain iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of
rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or
other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a
width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness.
Included as subject merchandise in this petition are flat-rolled
products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have
been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been
bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS)
under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Although the
HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 1996 through
September 30, 1996.
Nonmarket Economy Country Status
The Department has treated Ukraine as a nonmarket economy country
(NME) in all past antidumping investigations and administrative reviews
(see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Ferrosilicon From Kazakhstan and Ukraine, 58 FR 13050 (March 9, 1993);
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicomanganese
From Ukraine, 59 FR 62711 (December 6, 1994); and Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Ukraine, 60 FR
16432 (March 30, 1995)). A designation as an NME remains in effect
until it is revoked by the Department (see section 771(18)(C) of the
Act). The Government of Ukraine has requested that the Department
examine Ukraine's designation as an NME in this investigation. The
Department is currently reviewing all information submitted by the
Ukrainian government and will take into consideration the comments of
all interested parties. However, for this preliminary determination,
the Department will continue to treat Ukraine as an NME.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
773(c) of the Act directs the Department in most circumstances to base
normal value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued
in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4),
the Department, in valuing the factors of production, shall utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in
one or more market-economy countries that are comparable in terms of
economic development to the NME country and are significant producers
of comparable merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are
discussed under the NV section below.
The Department has determined that Tunisia, Peru, Poland,
Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey are countries comparable to
Ukraine in terms of overall economic development. See Policy
Memorandum, dated January 29, 1997.
According to the available information on the record, we have
determined that Brazil is an appropriate surrogate because it is at a
comparable level of economic development and is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise. Furthermore, there is a wide array of
publicly available information for Brazil. Accordingly, we have
calculated NV using Brazilian prices to value the Ukrainian producers'
factors of production, when available and where appropriate. We have
obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever
possible.
Separate Rates
The Department presumes that a single dumping margin is appropriate
for all exporters in a non-market economy country. The Department may,
however, consider requests for a separate rate from an individual
exporter. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May
2, 1994). Each of the participating respondent exporters has requested
a separate, company-specific rate. During the POI, both Azovstal and
Ilyich were owned by leaseholders' organizations.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers).
Under the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate
rates in nonmarket economy cases only if respondents can demonstrate
the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over
export activities. For a complete analysis of separate rates, see
Separate Rates Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
An individual company may be considered for separates rates if it
meets the following de jure criteria: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and
export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control
of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. The respondents have placed on the
administrative record a number of submissions to demonstrate absence of
de jure control. These documents include laws, regulations, and
provisions enacted by the central government of Ukraine, which
demonstrate a significant degree of deregulation of Ukrainian business
activity, as well as deregulation of Ukrainian export activity.
Broadly speaking, the evidence on the record indicates that the
Government of Ukraine has instituted wide-ranging legal reforms toward
about a more market-based economy. To do so, the government has
attempted to devolve de jure governmental control over some state-owned
enterprises through the privatization process and most business
activities of non-state-owned enterprises. Because the government has
now created a right of ownership of business enterprises for private
persons and collectives, leaseholding societies, such as Azovstal and
Ilyich, formerly state-owned and operated, are now
[[Page 31960]]
distinct legal entities. In general, this ownership right allows non-
state-owned business enterprises to freely engage in economic activity,
negotiate and sign contracts, and independently develop business plans.
Collectives, like the leaseholding societies of Azovstal and Ilyich,
can independently select management through elections by the workers
collective and can exercise control and direction over the general
director through a contract between the enterprise and the general
director. Enterprises can have their own bank account, and, after
taxes, it appears that non-state-owned enterprises can keep the profits
from their sales, and engage in foreign economic activity, generally,
without government interference. Although certain categories of goods
are subject to mandatory export controls, including registration of
export contracts and obligatory minimum prices, respondents' shipments
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI were not
subject to mandatory pricing. Although the companies indicated they
must register their export contracts, it appears to have been more
geared to monitoring/statistical purposes.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by or subject
to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the respondent
has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3)
whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the
respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses.
Each respondent exporter has asserted, and supported on the record,
the following: (1) It sets its own export prices; (2) it negotiates
contracts without guidance from any governmental bodies; (3) it makes
its own personnel decisions with regard to selection of management
through elections by the members of the leaseholding societies, and the
General Director and his appointed Deputies have authority to negotiate
and enter into contracts on behalf of the enterprise; and (4) it has
separate bank accounts and retains the proceeds of its export sales
(although 50 percent of foreign currency earnings must be converted
into Ukrainian currency), uses profits according to its business needs,
and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. In
addition, respondents' questionnaire responses indicate that company-
specific pricing during the POI does not suggest coordination among
exporters.
Thus, it appears that in fact the operation of these laws did
provide Azovstal and Ilyich the ability to protect their rights to
autonomy in regard to the actual negotiation of export prices,
retention and disposition of profits, selection of management and
setting of labor rates, and negotiation of contracts, including export
contracts. This information supports a preliminary finding that there
is a de facto absence of governmental control of the export functions
of these companies.
Consequently, we determine preliminarily that both of the
participating producers/exporters meet the criteria for application of
separate rates.
Ukraine-Wide Rate
U.S. import statistics indicate that the total quantity and value
of U.S. imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from
Ukraine is greater than the total quantity and value of steel plate
reported by all Ukrainian companies that submitted responses. Given
this discrepancy, we conclude that not all exporters of Ukrainian
certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate responded to our
questionnaire. Accordingly, we are applying a single antidumping
deposit rate--the Ukraine-wide rate--to all exporters in Ukraine (other
than the two named above as receiving separate rates), based on our
presumption that those respondents who failed to respond constitute a
single enterprise, and are under common control by the Ukraine
government. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April
30, 1996).
This Ukraine-wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts
available. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an
interested party or any other person--(A) withholds information that
has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority * *
* shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available
in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to
the interests of that party as the facts otherwise available. The
statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on
secondary information, including the information drawn from the
petition.
As discussed above, all Ukrainian exporters that do not qualify for
a separate rate are treated as a single enterprise. Because some
exporters of the single enterprise failed to respond to the
Department's requests for information, that single enterprise is
considered to be uncooperative. In such situations, the Department
generally selects as total facts available either the higher of the
average of the margin from the petition or the highest rate calculated
for a respondent in the proceeding. In the present case, the average
margin in the petition is higher than the calculated rate. Accordingly,
the Department has based the Ukraine-wide rate on information in the
petition. In this case, the average petition rate is 237.91 percent.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department relies
on ``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonable at the Department's disposal. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA clarifies that the
petition is ``secondary information'' and that ``corroborate'' means to
determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at
870.
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the
margins in the petition to the extent practicable. The information
contained in the petition shows that petitioners calculated export
price based on two methods: (1) The import values declared to the U.S.
Customs Service; and (2) an average export price derived from actual
U.S. selling prices known to petitioners. We compared the starting
prices used by petitioners less the importer mark-ups against prices
derived from U.S. import statistics and found that the two sets of
prices were consistent. We also compared the movement charges used in
the petition with the surrogate values used by the Department in its
margin calculations and found them to be consistent.
[[Page 31961]]
The information in the petition with respect to the normal value
(NV) is based on factors of production used by the petitioners in the
production of steel plate. Petitioners submitted usage amounts for
materials, labor and energy, adjusted for known differences in
production efficiencies. Petitioners submitted three cost models in the
petition: (1) Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) Cost Model; (2) Open-Hearth
Furnace Cost Model; and (3) Weighted Average Normal Value of the BOF
and Open-Hearth methods to account for differences between the
production processes of petitioners and potential respondents.
The margins in the petition ranged from 201.61 to 274.82 percent
obtained by comparing the normal values to the export price developed
from customs values and to export prices developed from actual U.S.
price quotes. For each method, petitioners submitted estimated dumping
margins for the BOF method, the open-hearth method and a weighted
average of the two. See Corroboration Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from
Ukraine sold to the United States by the Ukrainian exporters receiving
separate rates was made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to
the NV, as specified in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice.
Export Price
For both Azovstal and Ilyich, we calculated EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior
to importation and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not
otherwise indicated. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the
Act, we compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs to the product-specific
average normal value.
We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
1. Azovstal
We calculated EP based on packed, FOB or CPT prices to the port of
loading on Ukrainian territory. We made deductions from the starting
price, where appropriate, for brokerage and handling. However, because
these services were provided by the Ukrainian port facility, these
services were assigned a surrogate value where available from publicly
available published data from Brazil, the surrogate country which we
are using to value factors of production. See Factors Memorandum, dated
June 3, 1997.
2. Ilyich
We calculated EP based on packed, FOB prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting
price, where appropriate, for brokerage and handling. However, because
these services were provided by the Ukrainian port facility, these
services were assigned a surrogate value where available from Brazilian
publicly available published data.
Normal Value
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on factors of production reported by the factories in the Ukraine
which produced the carbon steel plate sold by the two respondents. We
valued all the input factors using publicly available information as
discussed in the Surrogate Country section of this notice.
Factor Valuations
The selection of the surrogate values was based on the quality and
contemporaneity of the data. Where possible, we attempted to value
material inputs on the basis of tax-exclusive domestic prices in the
surrogate country. Where we were not able to rely on domestic prices,
we used import prices to value factors. As appropriate, we adjusted
input prices to make them delivered prices. For those values not
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale
price indices or, in the case of labor rates, consumer price indices,
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial
Statistics. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see Factors
Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.
To value coal, coke, anthracite, ferro alloys, aluminum, pellets,
ferro-manganese, lime, black oil, and scrap (not all materials were
used for both companies) we used public information from the latest
data published by the United Nations for 1996 (Commodity Trade
Statistics 1994, 3 Brazil Rev. 1995, at 19). For iron, we used
information in a 1996 Brazilian publication, Siderurigia no Mundo. For
manganese ore, we relied on public information from the financial
statements of Usinas Sidergicas de Minas Gerais S. and Compania
Siderurgica de Tubarao, two Brazilian steel companies. For limestone,
we used information from Commodity Trade Statistics 1993, Brazil Rev.
3, United Nations, 1994.
For natural gas, we relied on public information reported in the
Brazilian publication of Diario Oficial No. 180, September 27, 1995.
For electricity, we relied upon public information from Revista
Energetica, Year 19, No. 1, Jan-Apr 1995.
To value skilled labor, we used the County Reports on Human Rights
Practices for 1996, from the U.S. Department of State. For unskilled
labor, we relied on data documented for unskilled labor obtained from a
U.S. Department of Commerce cable dated October 1994. To value
overhead, SG&A, and profit, we relied on financial statements of Usinas
Sidergicas de Minas Gerais S. and Compania Siderurgica de Tubarao, two
Brazilian steel companies. To value brokerage, we relied on public data
from Case No. A-351-817, Cut-to-Length Plate from Brazil, Usiminas,
Section C Response at Exh. 6, dated November 21, 1996.
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances
On January 10, 1997, the petitioners alleged that there is a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances
exist with respect to imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel
plate. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.16(b)(2)(i) (1996), since these
allegations were filed earlier than the deadline for the Department's
preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary critical
circumstances determinations not later than the preliminary
determination.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that if a petitioner alleges
critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a
history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in
the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be
material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short
period.
The statute and the Statement of Administrative Action which
accompanies the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (SAA) are silent as to how
we are to make a finding that there was knowledge that there was likely
to be material injury. Therefore, Congress has left the method of
implementing this provision to the Department's discretion.
In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect
[[Page 31962]]
that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter was
selling the plate at less than fair value, the Department normally
considers margins of 15 percent or more sufficient to impute knowledge
of dumping for constructed export price (CEP) sales, and margins of 25
percent or more for export price (EP) sales. See, e.g., Preliminary
Critical Circumstances Determination: Honey from the People's Republic
of China (PRC), 60 FR 29824 (June 6, 1995) (Honey). Since the company
specific margins for EP sales in our preliminary determination for
carbon steel plate are greater than 25 percent for Azovstal and Ilyich,
we have imputed knowledge of dumping.
In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the
Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination
of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present
material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will
determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge
that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports
during the critical circumstances period--the 90-day period beginning
with the initiation of the investigation (see 19 CFR 353.16(g)). If, as
in this case, the ITC preliminarily finds threat of material injury
(See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa,
and Ukraine, U.S. International Trade Commission, December 1996), the
Department will also consider the extent of the increase in the volume
of imports of the subject merchandise during the critical circumstances
period and the magnitude of the margins in determining whether a
reasonable basis exists to impute knowledge that material injury was
likely.
In this case, imports of Ukrainian plate increased 45 percent in
the three months following the initiation of the investigation when
compared to the three months immediately preceding initiation, or three
times the level of increase needed to find ``massive imports'' during
the same period (see below). Furthermore, we have preliminarily found
margins of 99.59 percent for Azovstal and 176.76 percent for Ilyich.
Based on the ITC's preliminary determination of threat of injury,
the increase in imports noted above, and the high preliminary margins,
the Department determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe
or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that there was
likely to be material injury by means of sales of the subject
merchandise at less than fair value.
To determine whether imports were massive over a relatively short
time period, the Department typically compares the import volume of the
subject merchandise for the three months immediately preceding and
following the initiation of the proceeding. See 19 CFR 353.16(g).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), the Department will consider an
increase of 15 percent or more in the imports of the subject
merchandise over the relevant period to be massive.
As noted, imports of the subject merchandise increased 45 percent
during the relevant period, and thus we determine that imports have
been massive.
Thus, because we determine that there is a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that
Ukrainian exporters were selling the subject merchandise at less than
its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by
reason of such sales, and that there have been massive imports of the
subject merchandise over a relatively short time period, we
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist for Avostal
and Ilyich.
For companies subject to the Ukraine-wide rate (i.e., companies
which did not respond to the Department's questionnaire), we are
imputing knowledge based on the Ukraine-wide rate, and determine, based
on facts available, that there were massive imports of certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate by companies that did not respond to the
Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that
critical circumstances exist with regard to these companies.
We find that critical circumstances exist for cut-to-length carbon
steel plate sales by all Ukrainian exporters.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the
information used 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 from
Ukraine, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the date ninety days prior to the date of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct Customs Service
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the EP, as
indicated below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will
remain in effect until further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/producer/exporter margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azovstal................................................... 99.59
Ilyich..................................................... 176.76
Ukraine-wide rate.......................................... 237.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ukraine-Wide Rate
A Ukraine-wide rate has been assigned to certain cut-to-length
carbon steel plate based on the average margin contained in the
petition, as amended by the Department. The Ukraine-wide rate applies
to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from
exporters/producers that are identified individually above.
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 the domestic industry in the United States is materially
injured, or threatened with material injury, by reasons of imports, or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject
merchandise.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38 (1996), case briefs or other
written comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than 50 days
after the publication of this preliminary determination, and rebuttal
briefs, no later than five days after the filing of case briefs. A list
of authorities used and a summary of arguments made in the briefs
should accompany these briefs. Such summary should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes. We will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. The hearing will be held
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230, time, date, and room to be
determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and
place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
[[Page 31963]]
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 ten 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. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b)(1996), oral
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this
investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination
by August 18, 1997.
This determination is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the
Act.
Dated: June 3, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-15291 Filed 6-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P