[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15039-15040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8216]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-489-807]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabian Rivelis at (202) 482-3853 or 
Howard Smith at (202) 482-5193, Office of Antidumping Investigations, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

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 Round Agreements Act (``URAA'').

The Petition

    On March 8, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
received a petition filed in proper form by Florida Steel Corporation 
and New Jersey Steel Corporation (``petitioners''). The petitioners 
amended the petition on March 26, 1996, to exclude plain steel concrete 
reinforcing bar (``rebar'').
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners 
allege that imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (``rebar'') from 
Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and 
that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material 
injury to, a regional industry within the United States.1

    \1\  The region identified by petitioners consists of the states 
of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Florida, 
Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and 
Tennessee; plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the petitioners are interested parties as defined under 
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, they have standing to file a petition for 
the imposition of antidumping duties.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    The petitioners allege that there is a regional industry for the 
domestic like product and included data on both factors required by 
section 771(4)(C) of the Act; (1) the producers within such market sell 
all or almost all of their production of the like product in question 
in that market, and (2) the demand in that market is not supplied, to 
any substantial degree, by producers of the product in question located 
elsewhere in the United States. Under section 732(c)(4)(C), if the 
petitioner alleges that the industry is a regional industry, the 
Department shall determine whether the petition has been filed by or on 
behalf of the industry by applying the requirements set forth in 
section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act on the basis of the production in the 
region. Therefore, the Department has evaluated industry support for 
the petition based upon production in the region.
    Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires that the Department's 
industry support determination, which is to be

[[Page 15040]]
made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on whether a 
minimum percentage of the relevant regional industry supports the 
petition. A petition meets the minimum requirements if (1) domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product in the 
region; and (2) those domestic producers or workers in the region 
expressing support account for more than 50 percent of the production 
of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry 
in the region expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
    A review of the production data provided in the petition and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that the 
petitioners account for more than 50 percent of the total regional 
production of the like product. The Department received no expressions 
of opposition to the petition from any regional producers or workers. 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition is supported 
by the regional industry.

Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is all stock deformed 
steel concrete reinforcing bars (``rebar'') sold in straight lengths 
and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar, rolled from 
billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes 
(i) plain round rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked 
or fabricated, and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) under item numbers 7213.10.00 and 7214.20.00. The HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes.
    The written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The petitioners based export price on: (1) a contracted price for 
7,000 to 10,000 metric tons of deformed rebar, and (2) an offer of sale 
for about 10,000 metric tons of deformed rebar. The terms of the 
contract and offer are C.I.F. The petitioners made deductions to export 
price for insurance, port expenses, and shipping costs.
    The petitioners based NV on an offer sheet published in Turkey by 
Turkish rebar producers. Since the terms are ex-factory, petitioners 
made no deductions to NV. The petitioners adjusted and/or inflated the 
prices on the offer sheet in an effort to make more contemporaneous 
comparisons to export price. However, the Department considers the 
prices as shown on the offer sheet already to be contemporaneous and 
thus used them as the basis for normal value without adjustment. See 
memorandum to the file dated March 26, 1996.
    Based on comparisons of export price to NV, the estimated dumping 
margins, as recalculated by the Department, range from 27.4 to 41.8 
percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of rebar from Turkey are being, or are likely to 
be, sold at less than fair value. If it becomes necessary at a later 
date to consider the petition as a source of facts available under 
section 776 of the Act, we may further review the calculations.

Critical Circumstances

    The petition contains an allegation that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of subject merchandise.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
critical circumstances exist if:
    (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 petition contains information that satisfies the criteria. 
First, petitioners state that Singapore has recently imposed final 
antidumping duties on rebar from Turkey. Because there is an indication 
of a history of dumping and material injury, it is not necessary to 
address importer knowledge.
    Because we have information indicating that the first statutory 
criterion is met, we must consider the second statutory criterion: 
whether imports of the merchandise have been massive over a relatively 
short period. According to the import statistics contained in the 
petition, imports of rebar from Turkey into the region increased by 252 
percent from 1993 to 1994. Based on import statistics from January 
through October 1995, petitioners projected the increase of Turkish 
imports into the region from 1994 to 1995 to be 51 percent.
    Because the petition provides evidence that there is a history of 
dumping and material injury, and that imports of subject merchandise 
from Turkey have been massive over a relatively short period of time, 
we find a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances may exist and will investigate this matter further.

Initiation of Investigation

    We have examined the petition on rebar and have found that it meets 
the requirements of section 732 of the Act, including the requirements 
concerning allegations of the material injury or threat of material 
injury to a regional industry of a like product by reason of the 
complained-of imports, allegedly sold at less than fair value. 
Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to 
determine whether imports of rebar from Turkey are being, or are likely 
to be, sold at less than fair value on a regional basis. Unless 
extended, we will make our preliminary determination by August 15, 
1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives 
of the Government of Turkey. We will attempt to provide a copy of the 
public version of the petition to each exporter of rebar named in the 
petition.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by April 22, 1996, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of rebar from Turkey are causing 
material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. 
industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation 
being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according 
to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act.

    Dated: March 28, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-8216 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P