[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31967-31972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-821-808]


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the Russian Federation

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair 
value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nithya Nagarajan, Eugenia Chu, or Yury 
Beyzarov, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193, (202) 482-3964, or 
(202) 482-2243, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1, 1996).

Preliminary Determination

    We determine preliminarily that certain cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate from the Russian Federation is being, or is likely to be, sold in 
the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in 
section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins are shown in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (61 FR 64051, December 
3, 1996), the following events have occurred:
    On December 19, 1996, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary determination in 
this case (see ITC Investigations Nos. 731-TA-753-756). The ITC found 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the 
Russian Federation of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate.
    The Department issued its antidumping questionnaires to the Russian 
Embassy on December 20, 1996, and requested the Embassy to forward the 
documents to all Russian producers/exporters of certain cut-to-length 
carbon steel plate, as well as to manufacturers who produced the 
subject merchandise for companies who were engaged in exporting subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. We 
requested the Embassy to inform these companies that they must respond 
by the due dates. We also sent courtesy copies to the companies whose 
names and complete addresses had been identified in the petition.
    On January 8, 1997, the Department conducted a questionnaire 
presentation in the Russian Federation. Attending the presentation were 
officials from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and 
potential producers/exporters of certain cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate.
    On January 10, 1997, Geneva Steel Company and Gulf States Steel 
Company (petitioners), alleged that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the 
Russian Federation. This issue is addressed in the ``Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances'' section of this notice.
    On February 6, 1997, the Department provided interested parties 
with the opportunity to submit published, publicly available 
information for the Department to consider when valuing the factors of 
production and for surrogate country selection. We received comments 
from interested parties at the end of February 1997.
    In January and February 1997, one Russian company, JSC Severstal 
(Severstal), submitted responses to sections A, C, and D of the 
questionnaire. Severstal is a Russian exporter of subject merchandise. 
We issued supplemental questionnaires to this respondent company on 
March 7, 1997 and received completed responses on April 4, and 11, 
1997.
    Severstal reported that it sold subject merchandise through 
unrelated trading companies at the port of export in Russia or the 
Baltic states. In light of this fact, the Department concluded that 
clarification was required as to whether these resellers sold 
additional subject

[[Page 31968]]

merchandise (unreported by the respondents) to the United States. 
Therefore, in March 1997, we also issued trading company questionnaires 
to Severstal's resellers. However, we received no responses.
    Also in March, in response to the Russian government's comments on 
Russia's nonmarket economy (NME) status, the Department issued the 
Russian government a questionnaire to clarify whether the Russian 
Federation's NME status should be revoked. However, on March 28, 1997, 
the Russian Federation informed the Department that it will not be 
seeking market-economy status in this proceeding. This issue is 
addressed in the ``Nonmarket Economy Country Status'' section of this 
notice.
    Except for Severstal, none of the other companies served with a 
questionnaire responded to the Department's original questionnaire.
    On April 15, 1997, petitioners submitted a request that the scope 
of their petitions be amended to include three items--plate in coil; 
plate made to carbon plate specifications regardless of alloy content; 
and plate sold to nominal plate thicknesses whose actual thickness is 
slightly less than the thickness of plate but within specified 
thickness tolerances. With respect to plate in coil, petitioners 
maintain that this product has essentially the same physical 
characteristics and end uses as cut-to-length plate. Petitioners 
further claim that a post-initiation shift has occurred in the pattern 
of trade from cut-to-length plate to plate in coil form, and that such 
a development indicates that any eventual order on cut-to-length plate 
will be susceptible to circumvention. Petitioners submitted additional 
information on May 9, 1997. Respondents submitted extensive rebuttal 
comments on April 25, 1997, and May 30, 1997.
    Because of the very recent submission of arguments on these complex 
and technical subjects, we were unable to fully analyze all of the 
relevant information on the record prior to this preliminary 
determination. In order to fully examine petitioners' claims, we intend 
to carefully examine all evidence and argument on the record regarding 
this matter and issue a decision as soon as possible.
    On April 30, 1997 (62 FR 23433) we further postponed the 
preliminary determination until not later than June 3, 1997.

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are hot-rolled iron and 
non-alloy steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products 
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 
mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, 
not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, 
neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, 
varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and 
certain iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of 
rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with 
metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or 
other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a 
width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. 
Included as subject merchandise in this petition are flat-rolled 
products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is 
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have 
been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) 
under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Although the 
HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 1996, through 
September 30, 1996.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the Russian Federation as a nonmarket 
economy country (NME) in all past antidumping investigations and 
administrative reviews (see, e.g., Titanium Sponge from the Russian 
Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 
62 FR 25920 (May 12, 1997); Notice of Final Determination of Sale at 
Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the 
Russian Federation, 60 FR 16440 (March 30, 1995); Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of the 
Final Determination: Ferrovanadium and Nitridid Vanadium from the 
Russian Federation, 60 FR 438 (January 4, 1995)). A designation as an 
NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department (see 
section 771(18)(C) of the Act). Therefore, for this preliminary 
determination, the Department will continue to treat the Russian 
Federation as an NME.
    On January 9, 1997 the Russian Federation submitted a filing, on 
the record, requesting market economy status. The filing consisted of a 
letter and several Russian laws. On March 25, 1997, the Department 
drafted a questionnaire addressed to the Department of the Ministry for 
Foreign Economic Relations of the Russian Federation requesting 
additional information for Market Economy Status. On April 22, 1997, 
the Department contacted the Russian embassy via telephone regarding 
the Department's questionnaire on market economy status. The Embassy 
conveyed to Department personnel that the Russian Federation will not 
be seeking market economy status in this proceeding. Thus, the 
Department will continue to treat the Russian Federation as an NME.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c) of the Act directs the Department in most circumstances to base 
normal value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued 
in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4), 
the Department, in valuing the factors of production, shall utilize, to 
the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in 
one or more market-economy countries that are comparable in terms of 
economic development to the NME country and are significant producers 
of comparable merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are 
discussed under the NV section below.
    The Department has determined that Tunisia, Peru, Poland, 
Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey are countries comparable to 
the Russian Federation in terms of overall economic development. See 
Policy Memorandum, dated January 29, 1997.
    According to the available information on the record, we have 
determined that Brazil is an appropriate surrogate because it is at a 
comparable level of economic development and is a significant producer 
of comparable merchandise. Furthermore, there is a wide array of 
publicly available information for Brazil. Accordingly, we have 
calculated NV using Brazilian prices to value the Russian producers'

[[Page 31969]]

factors of production, when available and where appropriate. We have 
obtained and relied upon public information wherever possible.

Separate Rates

    The Department presumes that a single dumping margin is appropriate 
for all exporters in a non market economy country. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon 
Carbide). The Department may, however, consider requests for a separate 
rate from individual exporters. Severstal has requested a separate, 
company-specific rate. The claimed ownership structure of Severstal 
during the POI is that of a publicly owned joint stock company, where 
the state owns 20% of the shares.
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers) and 
amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the 
Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if a 
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities. For a complete analysis of 
separate rates, see Separate Rates Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    An individual company may be considered for separates rates if it 
meets the following de jure criteria: (1) An absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control 
of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. The respondents have placed on the 
administrative record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of 
de jure control. These documents include laws, regulations, and 
provisions enacted by the central government of the Russian Federation, 
describing the deregulation of Russian enterprise as well as the 
deregulation of the Russian export trade, except for a list of products 
that may be subject to central government export constraints. 
Respondents claim that the subject merchandise is not on this list. 
This information supports a preliminary finding that there is an 
absence of de jure government control. See Separate Rates Memorandum, 
dated June 3, 1997.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by 
or subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.
    Severstal has asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own 
EPs; (2) it negotiates contracts, without guidance from any 
governmental entities or organizations; (3) it selects its own 
management; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses 
profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell 
its assets and to obtain loans. In addition, Severstal's questionnaire 
responses indicate that company-specific pricing during the POI does 
not suggest coordination among exporters. This information supports a 
preliminary finding that there is an absence of de facto governmental 
control of the export functions of these companies.
    Consequently, we determine preliminarily that Severstal meets the 
criteria for application of separate rates. See Separate Rates 
Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.

The Russia-Wide Rate

    U.S. import statistics indicate that the total quantity and value 
of U.S. imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the 
Russian Federation is greater than the total quantity and value of 
steel plate reported by all Russian companies that submitted responses. 
Given this discrepancy, we conclude that not all exporters of Russian 
cut-to-length carbon steel plate responded to our questionnaire. 
Accordingly, we are applying a single antidumping deposit rate--the 
Russia-wide rate--to all exporters in the Russian Federation (other 
than Severstal), based on our presumption that those respondents who 
failed to respond constitute a single enterprise and are under common 
control by the Russian Federation government. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the 
People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996).
    This Russia-wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts 
available. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an 
interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has 
been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority * * 
* shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of that party as the facts otherwise available. The 
statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on 
secondary information, including the information drawn from the 
petition.
    As discussed above, all Russian exporters that do not qualify for a 
separate rate are treated as a single enterprise. Because some 
exporters of the single enterprise failed to respond to the 
Department's requests for information, that single enterprise is 
considered to be uncooperative. In such situations, the Department 
generally selects as total facts available either the higher of the 
average of the margin from the petition or the highest rate calculated 
for a respondent in the proceeding. In the present case, the average 
margin in the petition is higher than the one calculated rate. 
Accordingly, the Department has based the Russia-wide rate on 
information in the petition. In this case, the average petition rate is 
185.00 percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department relies 
on ``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonable at the Department's disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA clarifies that the 
petition is ``secondary information'' and that ``corroborate'' means to 
determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 
870.

[[Page 31970]]

    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the 
margins in the petition to the extent practicable. The information 
contained in the petition shows that petitioners calculated export 
price based on two methods: (1) The import values declared to the U.S. 
Customs Service; and (2) an average export price derived from actual 
U.S. selling prices known to petitioners. We compared the starting 
prices used by petitioners less the importer mark-ups against prices 
derived from U.S. import statistics and found that the two sets of 
prices were consistent. We also compared the movement charges used in 
the petition with the surrogate values used by the Department in its 
margin calculations and found them to be consistent.
    The information in the petition with respect to the normal value 
(NV) is based on factors of production used by the petitioners in the 
production of steel plate. Petitioners submitted usage amounts for 
materials, labor and energy, adjusted for known differences in 
production efficiencies. Petitioners submitted three cost models in the 
petition: 1) Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) Cost Model; 2) Open-Hearth 
Furnace Cost Model; and 3) Weighted Average Normal Value of the BOF and 
Open-Hearth methods to account for differences between the production 
processes of petitioners and potential respondents.
    The margins in the petition ranged from 139.97 to 230.38 percent 
obtained by comparing the normal values to the export price developed 
from customs values and to export prices developed from actual U.S. 
price quotes. For each method, petitioners submitted estimated dumping 
margins for the BOF method, the open-hearth method and a weighted 
average of the two. For more detail, see Corroboration Memorandum, 
dated June 3, 1997.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 
the Russian Federation sold to the United States by the Russian 
exporters receiving separate rates were made at less than fair value, 
we compared the EP to the NV, as specified in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Export Price

    For Severstal, we calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation 
and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise 
indicated. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs to the factors of production.
    We made adjustments as follows: We calculated EP based on packed, 
FOB prices to the port of loading on the Russian territory. We made 
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for brokerage 
and handling. However, because these services were provided by the 
Russian port, these services were assigned a surrogate value as 
available from Brazilian publicly available published data.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by the factory in the Russian 
Federation which produced the cut-to-length carbon steel plate sold by 
Severstal. We valued all the input factors using publicly available 
published information as discussed in the Surrogate Country section of 
this notice.

Factor Valuations

    The selection of the surrogate values was based on the quality and 
contemporaneity of the data. Where possible, we attempted to value 
material inputs on the basis of tax-exclusive domestic prices in the 
surrogate country. Where we were not able to rely on domestic prices, 
we used import prices to value factors. As appropriate, we adjusted 
input prices to make them delivered prices. For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale 
price indices or, in the case of labor rates, consumer price indices, 
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see Factors 
Memorandum.
    To value coal, coke, iron, lime, ferro alloys, packing materials 
(locks), and scrap, we used public information from the latest data 
published by the United Nations for 1996 (Commodity Trade Statistics 
1994, 3 Brazil Rev. 1995, at 19). For limestone, we used information 
from Commodity Trade Statistics 1993, Brazil Rev. 3, United Nations, 
1994. For packing (bands), we used information reported in data from 
the 1992 UN Import Statistics; Taken from the Department of Commerce 
NME Factors Index, case A-821-805.
    For natural gas, we relied on public information reported in the 
Diario Oficial No. 180, September 27, 1995. For electricity, we relied 
upon public information from the September 27, 1995 Official 
Publication of the Brazilian Government to obtain an average price for 
electricity.
    To value rail transport for coal and for iron ore, we used public 
information reported in the July 1996 Cargo and Transport Magazine 
(Confederaco Nacional de Transporte Brazil). The exchange rate used was 
.9970 US$/R$. The source for the exchange rate for rail transport was 
obtained from the IMF's International Financial Statistics, January 
1997, for the average during the POI.
    To value skilled labor, we used the County Reports on Human Rights 
Practices for 1996, from the U.S. Department of State. For unskilled 
labor, we relied on data obtained from a U.S. Department of Commerce 
cable dated October 1994. To value overhead, SG&A, and profit, we used 
public information reported in the 1996/1997 Brazil company handbook. 
These are the average percentages for various Brazilian iron and steel 
companies. To value brokerage, we relied on public information from 
Case No. A-351-817, Plate from Brazil, Usiminas, Section C Response at 
Exh.6, dated November 21, 1996.
    Severstal reported the amount of slag, a by-product of the plate 
production process, produced in the production of the subject 
merchandise. Normally, the Department offsets the calculated cost of 
manufacturing by the value of any by-products. The only surrogate value 
for slag from Brazil was aberrationally high when compared to an 
available U.S. rate. Based on our knowledge of the steelmaking process, 
we know that slag is a by-product with a relatively low value (compared 
to the price of steel plate). We were able to locate an appropriate 
value for slag from the U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodities 
Summaries from February 1997. We used the U.S. slag value for the 
preliminary determination. We will continue to try to locate an 
appropriate surrogate value from Brazil, or another country at a 
comparable level of development for our final determination.

Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances

    On January 10, 1997, the petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.16(b)(2)(i) (1996), since these 
allegations were filed earlier than the deadline for the Department's 
preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary critical

[[Page 31971]]

circumstances determinations not later than the preliminary 
determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that if a petitioner alleges 
critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a 
history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in 
the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period.
    The statute and the Statement of Administrative Action which 
accompanies the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (SAA) are silent as to how 
we are to make a finding that there was knowledge that there was likely 
to be material injury. Therefore, Congress has left the method of 
implementing this provision to the Department's discretion.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling the plate at less than fair value, the Department normally 
considers margins of 15 percent or more sufficient to impute knowledge 
of dumping for constructed export price (CEP) sales, and margins of 25 
percent or more for export price (EP) sales. See, e.g., Preliminary 
Critical Circumstances Determination: Honey from the People's Republic 
of China (PRC), 60 FR 29824 (June 6, 1995) (Honey). Since the company 
specific margins for EP sales in our preliminary determination for 
carbon steel plate are greater than 25 percent for Severstal, we have 
imputed knowledge of dumping.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the 
Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination 
of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present 
material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will 
determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge 
that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports 
during the critical circumstances period--the 90-day period beginning 
with the initiation of the investigation (see 19 CFR 353.16(g)). If, as 
in this case, the ITC preliminarily finds threat of material injury 
(See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, 
and Ukraine, U.S. International Trade Commission, December 1996), the 
Department will also consider the extent of the increase in the volume 
of imports of the subject merchandise during the critical circumstances 
period and the magnitude of the margins in determining whether a 
reasonable basis exists to impute knowledge that material injury was 
likely.
    In this case, imports of Russian plate increased 145 percent in the 
three months following the initiation of the investigation when 
compared to the three months immediately preceding initiation, or 
almost ten times the level of increase needed to find ``massive 
imports'' during the same period (see below). Furthermore, we have 
preliminarily found margins of 61.23 percent for Severstal.
    Based on the ITC's preliminary determination of threat of injury, 
the increase in imports noted above, and the high preliminary margins, 
the Department determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe 
or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that there was 
likely to be material injury by means of sales of the subject 
merchandise at less than fair value.
    To determine whether imports were massive over a relatively short 
time period, the Department typically compares the import volume of the 
subject merchandise for the three months immediately preceding and 
following the initiation of the proceeding. See 19 CFR 353.16(g). 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), the Department will consider an 
increase of 15 percent or more in the imports of the subject 
merchandise over the relevant period to be massive. As noted, imports 
of the subject merchandise increased 145 percent during the relevant 
period, and thus we determine that imports have been massive.
    Thus, because we determine that there is a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that 
Russian exporters were selling the subject merchandise at less than its 
fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of 
such sales, and that there have been massive imports of the subject 
merchandise over a relatively short time period, we preliminarily 
determine that critical circumstances exist for Severstal.
    For companies subject to the Russia-wide rate (i.e., companies 
which did not respond to the Department's questionnaire), we are 
imputing knowledge based on the Russia-wide rate, and determine, based 
on facts available, that there were massive imports of certain cut-to-
length carbon steel plate by companies that did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
critical circumstances exist with regard to these companies.
    We find that critical circumstances exist for cut-to-length carbon 
steel plate sales by all Russian exporters.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the 
information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject from 
Ukraine, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the date ninety days prior to the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct Customs Service 
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the EP, as 
indicated below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   margin  
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severstal..................................................        61.23
The Russia-Wide Rate.......................................       185.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Russia-Wide Rate

    A Russia-wide rate has been assigned to certain cut-to-length 
carbon steel plate based on the average margin contained in the 
petition, as amended by the Department. The Russia-wide rate applies to 
all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from exporters/
factories that are identified individually above.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially 
injured, or threatened with

[[Page 31972]]

material injury, by reasons of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of 
sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38 (1996), case briefs or other 
written comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than 50 days 
after the publication of this preliminary determination, and rebuttal 
briefs, no later than 5 days after the filing of case briefs. A list of 
authorities used and a summary of arguments made in the briefs should 
accompany these briefs. Such summary should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. We will hold a public hearing, if 
requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. The hearing will be held 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, time, date, and room to be 
determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and 
place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b) (1996), oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this 
investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination 
by August 18, 1997.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the 
Act.

    Dated: June 3, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-15293 Filed 6-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P