[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