[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 198 (Thursday, October 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53203-53208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-489-807]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Werker, Fabian Rivelis, or 
Shawn Thompson, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-3874, (202) 482-3853, or (202) 482-1776, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain steel concrete reinforcing 
bars (rebar) from Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 
733(b) of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 
the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the notice of initiation of this investigation on March 28, 
1996 (61 FR 15039, April 4, 1996), the following events have occurred:
    On April 22, 1996, the United States International Trade Commission 
(ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination.
    On May 9, 1996, the Department presented its questionnaire 
concerning Sections A, B, and C to all known Turkish exporters of 
rebar, in accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.42(b). These companies are 
Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas), Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. 
(Colakoglu), Cukurova Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cukurova), Diler Demir 
Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (DDC), Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (Diler), 
Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S. (Ekinciler), Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar 
Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas), Icdas Istanbul Celik ve Demir Izabe 
Sanayii A.S. (Icdas), Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (IDC), Izmir 
Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A. S. (Metas), and Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi 
ve Ticaret A.S. (Yazici).
    In May and June 1996, we received a response to Section A of the 
questionnaire from each of the companies identified above. Based on our 
analysis of this information, we determined that Cebitas, Cukurova, 
DDC, Diler, Icdas, and Yazici did not export rebar to the United States 
during the period of investigation (POI). Accordingly, we instructed 
these companies not to submit responses to the remaining sections of 
the questionnaire.
    In its Section A response, Habas informed the Department that, 
although it had a viable home market, it would be unable to provide 
complete information on the physical characteristics for a significant 
portion of its home market sales. Consequently, Habas requested 
guidance from the Department as to the appropriate basis for normal 
value (NV). On June 5, 1996, we notified Habas that we had insufficient 
data to conclude that its home market sales could not be used in price-
to-price comparisons. Accordingly, we instructed Habas to report home 
market sales as required in Section B of questionnaire. For further 
discussion, see the ``Fair Value Comparisons'' section of this notice.
    In June 1996, we received responses to Sections B and C of the 
questionnaire from Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, IDC, and Metas 
(hereinafter ``respondents''). The Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to respondents in July 1996.
    On July 12, 1996, petitioners submitted a timely allegation 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act that respondents had made sales 
in the home market below the cost of production (COP). On July 19, 
1996, we initiated a COP investigation and issued COP questionnaires to 
all respondents.
    On July 22, 1996, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, 
petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary 
determination. We granted this request, and on July 29, 1996, we 
postponed the preliminary determination until no later than October 4, 
1996 (61 FR 40194, August 1, 1996).
    In August 1996, we received responses to the supplemental sales 
questionnaires from Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas. IDC, 
however, informed the Department on August 12, 1996, that it would not 
be able to respond to the supplemental questionnaire in a timely 
manner. Although we afforded IDC an opportunity to request additional 
time for completion of its response, IDC neither requested an extension 
nor submitted any additional information. For further discussion, see 
the ``Facts Available'' section of this notice, below.
    All respondents except IDC submitted COP responses in August 1996. 
In September 1996, we issued supplemental COP questionnaires to all 
respondents except IDC. Responses to these questionnaires were also 
received in September 1996.
    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on September 11, 1996, 
three of the four respondents, Colakoglu, Ekinciler, and Habas, 
requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. For further discussion, see the 
``Postponement of Final Determination'' section of this notice.
    On October 2, 1996, Colakoglu submitted updated information on its 
1996 shipments to the United States. However, because we are making our 
preliminary determination on October 4, 1996, we have been unable to 
use this data in our critical circumstances analysis. Nonetheless, we 
will verify this information and use it for purposes of the final 
determination.

Facts Available

    One of the respondents in this case, IDC, failed to respond 
completely to the Department's requests for information. Specifically, 
IDC submitted a response to the May 9 questionnaire, but did not 
provide any subsequent information, including a response to the 
supplemental sales questionnaire and the COP questionnaire.
    On August 12, 1996, IDC informed the Department that it would not 
be able to provide any additional information in a timely manner and 
requested that the Department use the information already on the record 
in its analysis. However, we were unable to perform any analysis for 
IDC without a COP response because COP data is an essential component 
in our margin calculations. Accordingly,

[[Page 53204]]

we afforded IDC, a pro se respondent (i.e., without legal 
representation), an opportunity to request additional time for 
completion of its responses. However, IDC neither requested an 
extension nor submitted any additional data.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
(1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department (2) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested (3) significantly impedes a determination under the 
antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e), use facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Because IDC failed to respond to 
the Department's supplemental and cost questionnaires and because that 
failure is not overcome by the application of subsections (c)(1) and 
(e), we must use facts otherwise available with regard to IDC.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used against a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See also 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 
316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (SAA). IDC's failure to reply to the 
Department's questionnaires demonstrates that IDC has failed to act to 
the best of its ability in this investigation. Thus, the Department has 
determined that, in selecting among the facts otherwise available to 
IDC, an adverse inference is warranted. As facts otherwise available, 
we are assigning to IDC the highest margin stated in the notice of 
initiation, 41.8 percent.
    Section 776(c) provides that, when the Department relies on 
secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts 
otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. When analyzing the petition, the Department reviewed all of 
the data the petitioners relied upon in calculating the estimated 
dumping margins, and adjusted those calculations where necessary. See 
Memorandum to the File from Case Analysts, dated March 26, 1996. These 
estimated dumping margins were based on a comparison of a home market 
price list to (1) a contracted price to a U.S. customer and (2) an 
offer of sale to a U.S. customer. The estimated dumping margins, as 
recalculated by the Department, ranged from 27.4 to 41.8 percent. The 
Department corroborated all of the secondary information from which the 
margin was calculated during our pre-initiation analysis of the 
petition to the extent appropriate information was available for this 
purpose at that time. For purposes of the preliminary determination, 
the Department re-examined the price information provided in the 
petition in light of information developed during the investigation and 
found that it continued to be of probative value.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on September 11, 1996, 
three of the four respondents, Colakoglu, Ekinciler, and Habas, 
requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of the 
preliminary determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with 
19 CFR Sec. 353.20(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is 
affirmative, (2) the respondents account for a significant proportion 
of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons 
for denial exist, we are granting respondents' request and are 
postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Scope of Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is all stock deformed 
steel concrete reinforcing bars 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 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995.

Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and in the SAA at 
829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV's 
based on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales. When the 
Department is unable to find sales in the comparison market at the same 
level of trade as the U.S. sale(s), the Department may compare sales in 
the U.S. and foreign markets at a different level of trade.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at 
different levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the 
NV to account for differences in levels of trade if two conditions are 
met. First, there must be differences between the actual selling 
functions performed by the seller at the level of trade of the U.S. 
sale and at the level of trade of the NV sale. Second, the difference 
in level of trade must affect price comparability as evidenced by a 
pattern of consistent price differences between sales at the different 
levels of trade in the market in which NV is determined. When 
constructed export price (CEP) is applicable, section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act establishes the procedures for making a CEP offset when: (1) NV 
is at a different level of trade and (2) the data available do not 
provide an appropriate basis for a level of trade adjustment.
    In order to identify levels of trade, the Department must review 
information concerning the selling activities of the exporter, as well 
as whether different marketing stages exist. In addition, a respondent 
seeking to establish a level of trade adjustment must demonstrate the 
appropriateness of such an adjustment. Therefore, in addition to the 
questions related to level of trade in our May 9, 1996, questionnaire, 
we sent each respondent supplemental questions related to level of 
trade comparisons and adjustments in June 1996.
    Only one respondent, Metas, claimed what it purported to be 
different levels of trade in the home market and that an adjustment was 
warranted 1. Metas classified its U.S. customers as trading 
companies. As part of our level of trade analysis, we examined the 
selling activities at each reported home market and U.S. marketing 
stage. Because we found that there was no substantive difference in the 
selling activities performed by Metas at any of its marketing stages 
either in the home market or in the United States, we

[[Page 53205]]

determine that there was only one level of trade. Because U.S. sales 
are at the same level as home market sales, no adjustment to NV is 
warranted. See the Concurrence Memorandum dated October 4, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Metas also claimed that we should compare sales to trading 
companies in the United States to sales to Metas distributors in the 
home market because the quantities were similar in both types of 
transactions. In the alternative, Metas requested that we compare 
U.S. trading company sales to all home market sales after adjusting 
the price of home market sales to reflect volume-related discounts. 
However, Metas failed to provide us with quantitative support for 
these claims, and our own analysis indicates that such comparisons 
and adjustments are unwarranted. See the Concurrence Memorandum 
dated October 4, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Petitioners have requested that the Department and the ITC adopt a 
regional industry 2 analysis, in accordance with section 771(4)(C) 
of the Act. In our notice of initiation we indicated that the petition 
had met the requirements of sections 771(4)(C) and 732(c)(4)(C) of the 
Act. Section 736(d)(1) of the Act directs the Department to assess 
duties only on the subject merchandise of the specific exporters and 
producers that exported the subject merchandise for sale into the 
region concerned during the POI. However, because respondents were not 
able to provide requested information on sales which were ultimately 
made in the region, we have not limited our analysis in the LTFV 
investigation to only shipments entering ports located in the region. 
We will again attempt to collect this information during any subsequent 
administrative reviews, in the event that an antidumping duty order is 
issued in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The region identified by the petitioners includes 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, Tennessee, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the Export Price 
(EP) to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of 
the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs for comparison to weighted-
average NVs.
    In making our comparisons, in accordance with section 771(16) of 
the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market, fitting 
the description specified in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section 
above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Regarding Colakoglu and 
Ekinciler, 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 listed in Appendix III of the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire. Regarding Habas and Metas, because we found no home 
market sales at prices above COP, we made no price-to-price 
comparisons. See the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below, 
for further discussion.
    In order to determine the appropriate price-averaging groups used 
in our product comparisons, we examined the reported marketing stages 
in light of the characteristics commonly associated with each of these 
categories (e.g., wholesaler vs. distributor). We then compared the 
average price reported in the home market sales listing for each 
marketing stage in order to identify any consistent pattern of pricing. 
We found that, for the sale of rebar, no consistent pattern of pricing 
existed for any of the respondents. Accordingly, for purposes of the 
preliminary determination, we based our price-averaging groups solely 
on the physical characteristics of the merchandise. See Memorandum to 
the File from Rebar Team, dated October 4, 1996.
    Finally, Turkey experienced significant inflation during the POI, 
as measured by the Wholesale Price Index, published in International 
Financial Statistics. Accordingly, to avoid the distortions caused by 
the effects of significant inflation on prices, we calculated EPs and 
NVs on a monthly average basis, rather than on a POI average basis.

Export Price

    For all of the Turkish respondents, 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 CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts of this investigation.

Affiliated Port Services

    Each of the respondents owns or is affiliated, either through a 
shipping or sales agent, to a port from which it ships merchandise to 
export destinations. During the POI, these ports provided a variety of 
services incident to moving the merchandise to the United States. 
Respondents reported all movement charges associated with movement at 
the port (e.g., lashing expense, loading expense, etc.). In addition, 
Colakoglu, Ekinciler, and Habas reported certain fees charged by the 
affiliated port to unaffiliated vessels for use of the port. These fees 
are intended to defray the administrative costs of running the port. 
However, for purposes of our LTFV analysis, we are concerned with the 
costs actually incurred by the affiliated port in moving the goods, not 
the fees the port may charge to cover these costs. Accordingly, we have 
disallowed these fees for purposes of the preliminary determination. 
Specifically, we disallowed wharfage revenue and shipping commission 
revenue for Colakoglu, agency fee revenue and shipping commission 
revenue for Ekinciler, and the profit generated by its port operations 
for Habas. We will collect additional information about the underlying 
selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred at these 
ports for purposes of the final determination.

A. Colakoglu

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions to EP for foreign inland freight, 
dunnage expenses, lashing expenses, loading charges, despatch expenses 
(which included an upward adjustment for revenue that was realized on a 
contractual agreement between Colakoglu and its ocean freight carrier), 
demurrage expenses, and ocean freight, where appropriate, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

B. Ekinciler

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, 
warehousing expenses, loading charges, tallying expenses, forklift 
expenses, dunnage and demurrage expenses (which included an upward 
adjustment for dunnage and despatch revenues), ramneck tape expenses, 
customs fees, detention expenses, stevedoring expenses, wharfage 
expenses, overage insurance, and ocean freight, where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

C. Habas

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions to EP for foreign inland freight, 
dunnage expenses, despatch expenses (which included an upward 
adjustment for revenue that was realized on a contractual agreement 
between Habas and its customer), brokerage and handling, demurrage 
expenses, customs fees, ocean freight, and marine insurance, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

D. Metas

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, 
lashing expenses, brokerage and handling, demurrage expenses (which 
included an upward

[[Page 53206]]

adjustment for revenue that was realized on a contractual agreement 
between Metas and its ocean freight carrier), and ocean freight, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 
Because each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home market was viable for each respondent.
    Because Ekinciler, Habas, and Metas reported home market sales to 
affiliated parties during the POI, we tested these sales to ensure 
that, on average, the affiliated party sales were at ``arm's length.'' 
To conduct this test, we compared the gross unit prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
rebates, and packing. Based on the results of that test, we discarded 
from each respondent's home market database all sales made to an 
affiliated party that failed the ``arm's length'' test.
    Based on the cost allegation submitted by petitioners, the 
Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in 
the home market were made at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether the respondents made home market sales during the POI 
at prices below their respective COP's within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act.
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Act. As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced 
significant inflationary during the POI. Therefore, in order to avoid 
the distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and 
prices, we requested that respondents submit monthly COP figures based 
on the current production costs incurred during each month of the POI.
    We used the respondents' monthly COP amounts, adjusted as discussed 
below, and the Primary Metals Index from the Turkish Government's State 
Institute of Statistics, to compute an annual weighted-average COP for 
the POI. We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market 
sales of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to 
the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, 
and packing expenses.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade.
    Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product 
during the POI were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of 
that model were made in ``substantial quantities,'' and within an 
extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2) (B) and 
(C). To determine whether prices were such as to provide for recovery 
of costs within a reasonable period of time, we tested whether the 
prices which were below the per unit cost of production at the time of 
the sale were above the weighted average per unit cost of production 
for the POI, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D). If it was, we 
disregarded below cost sales in determining NV.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred 
and realized by each respondent in connection with the production and 
sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for 
consumption in the foreign country. Where respondents made no home 
market sales in the ordinary course of trade (i.e., all sales were 
found to be below cost), we based profit and SG&A expenses on the 
weighted average of the profit and SG&A data computed for those 
respondents with home market sales of the foreign like product in the 
ordinary course of trade. We calculated each respondent's CV based on 
the methodology described in the calculation of COP above. Company-
specific calculations are discussed below.

A. Colakoglu

    We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the 
following instances: We adjusted Colakoglu's submitted scrap cost to 
include the transfer prices it paid to an affiliated company for 
freight service because the transfer prices occurred at arms-length and 
represent the actual cost to Colakoglu. We also recalculated 
Colakoglu's submitted monthly SG&A and financing expenses using the 
Primary Metals Index from the Turkish government's State Institute of 
Statistics rather than the Wholesale Price Index, as this index is more 
product-specific. We revised the SG&A and financing expense rates for 
COP and CV using amounts reported in Colakoglu's 1995 audited financial 
statements. Colakoglu based its reported SG&A and financing expense 
rates on amounts contained in the company's tax return. Finally, 
because Colakoglu did not report costs for products which were once-
folded, we assigned the COP and CV amounts calculated for the same 
products sold in straight lengths, based on Colakoglu's assertion that 
are no appreciable cost differences associated with folding.
    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on ex-factory prices to home market 
customers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted 
home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In addition, we 
adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These adjustments included 
differences in imputed credit expenses (offset by the interest revenue 
actually received by the respondent), bank charges, testing and 
inspection fees, and Exporters' Association fees. Where appropriate, we 
made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR Sec. 353.57.
    Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the 
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the 
weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.

B. Ekinciler

    We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the 
following instances: We used the Primary Metals Index in our COP and CV 
calculations rather than the Wholesale Price Index because it is more 
product-specific. We used this index to recalculate idle asset and 
revalued depreciation expense, SG&A, and financing expenses. We

[[Page 53207]]

revised the reported COP and CV to account for the costs of rebar 
produced by subcontractors. In addition, we included idle asset and 
revalued depreciation expense in the reported cost of rebar provided by 
subcontractors, and we disallowed Ekinciler's exclusion of foreign 
exchange losses from its calculation of financing expenses. Finally, we 
disallowed Ekinciler's exclusion of marketing and distribution expenses 
from its SG&A calculation because we were unable to determine the 
expenses included in the aggregate amount provided in Ekinciler's 
response. In order to avoid the potential double-counting of these 
expenses, we did not deduct home market movement charges when 
calculating the net price for COP.
    In accordance with section 771(16)(B)(i) of the Act, we excluded 
from our analysis home market sales by Ekinciler of rebar produced 
entirely by other manufacturers. For those comparison products for 
which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on ex-
factory, ex-warehouse or delivered prices to home market customers. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight, inland insurance, and direct warehousing expenses. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In addition, we adjusted 
for differences in the circumstances of sale, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These adjustments included 
differences in imputed credit expenses, bank charges, warranty 
expenses, testing and inspection fees, and Exporters' Association fees. 
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences 
in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR Sec. 353.57.
    Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the 
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the 
weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.

C. Habas

    We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the 
following instances: We used the Primary Metals Index in our COP and CV 
calculations rather than the Wholesale Price Index because it is more 
product-specific. We used this index to recalculate SG&A expenses and 
financing expenses. We revised the reported COP and CV to account for 
the cost of billets and rebar produced by subcontractors. In addition, 
we disallowed Habas's deduction of foreign exchange gains in its 
calculation of financing expenses, and we revised the SG&A expenses 
included in COP and CV using Habas's corporate SG&A expenses rather 
than the reported iron and steel division-specific SG&A expenses. See 
the Concurrence Memorandum dated October 4, 1996. Finally, where Habas 
did not report costs for certain products (i.e., for those products for 
which Habas was unable to determine a specific size), we calculated COP 
and CV as the simple average of the costs for all other products.
    Because all of Habas's home market sales were sold below COP, we 
compared CV to export prices. We deducted from CV the weighted-average 
home market direct selling expenses and added the weighted-average U.S. 
product-specific direct selling expenses. Home market direct selling 
expenses were based on the weighted average of the selling expense data 
computed for those respondents with home market sales of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade. U.S. direct selling 
expenses included imputed credit expenses, bank charges, testing and 
inspection fees, and Exporters' Association fees.

D. Metas

    We relied on the respondent's COP and CV amounts except in the 
following instance: Where Metas reported different costs of manufacture 
and fixed overhead amounts for the same product in its COP and CV 
databases, we used the higher of the reported costs in our 
calculations.
    Because all of Metas's home market sales were sold below COP, we 
compared CV to export prices. We deducted from CV the weighted-average 
home market direct selling expenses and added the weighted-average U.S. 
product-specific direct selling expenses. Home market direct selling 
expenses were based on the weighted average of the selling expense data 
computed for those respondents with home market sales of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade. U.S. direct selling 
expenses included imputed credit expenses (offset by the interest 
revenue actually received by the respondent), bank charges, testing and 
inspection fees, and Exporters' Association fees.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/
Retrieval Service. See 19 CFR Sec. 353.60.

Critical Circumstances

    In the petition, petitioners made a timely 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 knows 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.
    In this investigation, the first criterion is satisfied because the 
Republic of Singapore began imposing antidumping measures against rebar 
from Turkey in 1995. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there 
is a history of dumping elsewhere of rebar by Turkish producers/
exporters. Because there is a history of dumping, it is not necessary 
to address importer knowledge.
    Because we have preliminarily found 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 19 CFR Sec. 353.16(f) and Sec. 353.16(g), we 
consider the following to determine whether imports have been massive 
over a relatively short period of time: (1) volume and value of the 
imports; (2) seasonal trends (if applicable); and (3) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports.
    When examining volume and value data, the Department typically 
compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and 
following the filing of the petition. Under 19 CFR Sec. 353.16(f)(2), 
unless the imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 
15 percent over the imports during the base period, we will not 
consider the imports to have been ``massive.''
    To determine whether or not imports of subject merchandise have 
been massive over a relatively short period, for all respondents except 
IDC we

[[Page 53208]]

compared each respondent's export volume for the three to six months 
subsequent to and including the filing of the petition (depending on 
the available data) to that during the comparable period prior to the 
filing of the petition. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily find 
that the increase in imports of the subject merchandise from each of 
these respondents increased by more than 15 percent over a relatively 
short period. Moreover, regarding IDC, as facts available, we are 
making the adverse assumption that imports have been massive over a 
relatively short period of time in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) 
of the Act.
    Therefore, because there is a history of dumping of such or similar 
merchandise, and because we find that imports of rebar from all 
respondents have been massive over a relatively short period of time, 
we preliminarily determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe 
or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to exports of 
rebar from Turkey by Colakoglu, Ekinciler, Habas, IDC, and Metas.
    Regarding all other exporters, because we find that critical 
circumstances exist for all investigated companies, we also determine 
that critical circumstances exist for companies covered by the ``All 
Others'' rate.
    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances when we make our final determination of sales at less 
than fair value in this investigation.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries into the 
United States of rebar from Turkey, as defined in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days 
prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting 
of a bond equal to the estimated margin amount by which the normal 
value of the subject merchandise exceeds the United States Price as 
shown below. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until 
further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Weighted-                       
                                         average          Critical      
        Exporter/Manufacturer            margin        circumstances    
                                       percentage                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu............................      10.32   Yes.                 
Ekinciler............................      19.68   Yes.                 
Habas................................      16.78   Yes.                 
IDC..................................      41.80   Yes.                 
Metas................................      30.22   Yes.                 
All Others...........................      15.94   Yes.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than January 6, 1997, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than January 13, 1997. A list of authorities 
used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. Such summary should be limited to five 
pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with 19 CFR 
Sec. 353.38, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in 
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on 
January 16, 1997, time and place to be determined, at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date.
    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 
B-099, 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 Sec. 353.38(b), oral presentations 
will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation 
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by no later 
than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act.

    Dated: October 4, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-26084 Filed 10-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P