[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8946-8948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-307-813]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Steel Wire Rod from Venezuela

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

ACTION: Final determination of sales at less than fair value.

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

SUMMARY: The Department has made a final affirmative determination in 
this antidumping duty investigation. Because the respondent, C.V.G. 
Siderurgica del Orinoco, C.A., did not permit verification of its 
questionnaire responses, the margin in this determination is based on 
the facts available, in accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended. As facts available, we have applied the 
highest margin derived from the petition.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Daniel Manzoni, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-1121, 
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 Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 
353 (April 1997). Although the Department's new regulations, codified 
at 19 CFR 351 (62 FR 27296: May 19, 1997), do not govern this 
investigation, citations to those regulations are provided, where 
appropriate, to explain current Departmental practice.

Final Determination

    We determine that steel wire rod (``SWR'') from Venezuela is being, 
or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 735(b) of the Act. The estimated 
margin is shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

[[Page 8947]]

Case History

    Since the preliminary determination in this investigation 
(Preliminary Determination and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Steel Wire Rod from Venezuela, 62 FR 51584, October 1, 1997), 
(Preliminary Determination) the following events have occurred:
    On October 2, 1997, we issued a supplemental questionnaire 
regarding the cost of production questionnaire response to the 
respondent, C.V.G. Siderurgica del Orinoco, C.A. (``Sidor'').
    On October 28, 1997, Sidor advised the Department that it would not 
respond to the Department's October 2, 1997, supplemental questionnaire 
and it would not participate in verification of its questionnaire 
responses.
    On January 5, 1998, the petitioners submitted a case brief and on 
January 12, 1998, Sidor submitted a rebuttal brief.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled 
carbon steel and alloy steel products, in coils, of approximately round 
cross section, between 5.00 mm (0.20 inch) and 19.0 mm (0.75 inch), 
inclusive, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are 
steel products possessing the above noted physical characteristics and 
meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel 
steel; (d) ball bearing steel; (e) free machining steel that contains 
by weight 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of 
bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.4 percent of 
phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, and/or more than 0.01 
percent of tellurium; or (f) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. The 
following products are also excluded from the scope of this 
investigation:
     Coiled products 5.50 mm or less in true diameter with an 
average partial decarburization per coil of no more than 70 microns in 
depth, no inclusions greater than 20 microns, containing by weight the 
following: carbon greater than or equal to 0.68 percent; aluminum less 
than or equal to 0.005 percent; phosphorous plus sulfur less than or 
equal to 0.040 percent; maximum combined copper, nickel and chromium 
content of 0.13 percent; and nitrogen less than or equal to 0.006 
percent. This product is commonly referred to as ``Tire Cord Wire 
Rod.''
     Coiled products 7.9 to 18 mm in diameter, with a partial 
decarburization of 75 microns or less in depth and seams no more than 
75 microns in depth, containing 0.48 to 0.73 percent carbon by weight. 
This product is commonly referred to as ``Valve Spring Quality Wire 
Rod.''
     Coiled products 11 mm to 12.5 mm in diameter, with an 
average partial decarburization per coil of no more than 70 microns in 
depth, no inclusions greater than 20 microns, containing by weight the 
following: carbon greater than or equal to 0.72 percent; manganese 
0.50-1.10 percent; phosphorus less than or equal to 0.030 percent; 
sulfur less than or equal to 0.035 percent; and silicon 0.10-0.35 
percent. This product is free of injurious piping and undue 
segregation. The use of this excluded product is to fulfill contracts 
for the sale of Class III pipe wrap wire in conformity with ASTM 
specification A648-95 and imports of this product must be accompanied 
by such a declaration on the mill certificate and/or sales invoice. 
This excluded product is commonly referred to as ``Semifinished Class 
III Pipe Wrap Wire.''
    The products under investigation are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3000, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 
7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, and 7227.90.6050 of the HTSUS. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Exclusion of Pipe Wrap Wire

    As stated in the Preliminary Determination, North American Wire 
Products Corporation (``NAW''), an importer of the subject merchandise 
from Germany, requested that the Department exclude steel wire rod used 
to manufacture Class III pipe wrapping wire from the scope of the 
investigations of steel wire rod from Canada, Germany, Trinidad and 
Tobago, and Venezuela. On December 22, 1997, NAW submitted to the 
Department a proposed exclusion definition. On December 30, 1997, and 
January 7, 1998, the petitioners submitted letters concurring with the 
definition of the scope exclusion and requesting exclusion of this 
product from the scope of the investigation. We have reviewed NAW's 
request and petitioners' comments and have excluded steel wire rod for 
manufacturing Class III pipe wrapping wire from the scope of this 
investigation (see Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland dated January 9, 
1998, and instructions to Customs dated January 13, 1998).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 1996, through 
December 31, 1996.

Facts Available

    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 an antidumping 
investigation, or (4) provides such information but the information 
cannot be verified, the Department is required to use facts otherwise 
available to make its determination (subject to subsections 782(c) (1) 
and (e)).
    In addition, section 776 (b) of the Act provides that, in selecting 
from among the facts available, the Department may employ adverse 
inferences against an interested party if that party 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, 103rd Cong., 2d 
Sess. 870 (``SAA''). The statute also provides that such an adverse 
inference may be based on secondary information, including information 
drawn from the petition.
    Sidor's decision not to respond to the Department's October 2, 
1997, supplemental cost of production questionnaire and refusal to 
permit the Department to verify the information it submitted for the 
record in this investigation demonstrates that it failed to act to the 
best of its ability in this investigation. Therefore, the Department 
has determined that, in selecting from among the facts available, an 
adverse inference is appropriate. Consistent with Department practice 
in cases where a respondent withdraws its participation in an 
investigation, as adverse facts available, we have applied a margin 
based on information in the petition (see, e.g., Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Vector Supercomputers From Japan, 62 FR 
45623, August 28, 1997, (``Vector Supercomputers'')). See also Comment 
1.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information (such as information contained in the 
petition) as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources that are 
reasonably at its disposal. Corroborate means determine that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870.

[[Page 8948]]

    The petitioners calculated the highest margin in the petition, 
66.75 percent, based on a comparison of the petitioners' estimate of 
ex-factory export price to the petitioners' estimate of the constructed 
value (``CV''), as shown at Exhibit D of the petitioners' March 11, 
1997, submission. The petitioners derived export price based on price 
quotations to U.S. purchasers. Because Sidor's questionnaire response 
data is unverified, we did not rely on this data for purposes of 
corroboration. Therefore, we have compared the petitioners' export 
price estimate to IM-145 Import Statistics. Our comparison of these 
prices showed them to be reasonably consistent (see Memorandum to the 
file dated February 6, 1998). Accordingly, we determine that this 
export price calculation set forth in the petition has probative value.
    To calculate CV, the petitioners used manufacturing costs based on 
one petitioner's own production experience and publicly available 
industry data. When analyzing the petition, the Department reviewed all 
of the data the petitioners relied upon in calculating the estimated 
CV, and adjusted those calculations where necessary. For purposes of 
corroboration, we re-examined the data submitted by the petitioners and 
found it to be reasonable and of probative value. In addition, we note 
that no party has presented to the Department any information to 
support a challenge to the appropriateness of the information contained 
in the petition as the basis for a facts available margin for Sidor. 
See Vector Supercomputers, where the Department applied facts available 
margin in closely similar circumstances. In accordance with section 
776(c) of the Act, we have corroborated the highest margin in the 
petition, which is secondary information upon which we have relied as 
facts available.

Interested Party Comment

Comment: Facts Available Rate for Sidor

    The petitioners contend that, because Sidor refused to allow the 
Department to verify its questionnaire responses and refused to respond 
to the Department's October 2, 1997, supplemental questionnaire, the 
Department must assign Sidor a margin based on adverse facts available. 
Accordingly, the petitioners claim that the Department should assign 
the higher of the highest non-aberrational dumping margin calculated 
from Sidor's questionnaire responses, or the highest estimated dumping 
margin listed in the petition.
    Sidor contends that the Department should apply the rate of 51.21 
percent calculated for the preliminary determination as the appropriate 
facts available rate for this proceeding. However, Sidor has provided 
no support for its position.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners that the highest rate alleged in the 
petition, and as corroborated by the Department, is the appropriate 
facts available rate in this determination. Under section 782(i)(1) of 
the Act, the Department must rely on verified information for making a 
final determination in an antidumping duty investigation. Sidor's 
refusal to permit verification of its questionnaire responses prevents 
the Department from using Sidor's information for our final 
determination. Therefore, we did not use the margin calculated in the 
preliminary determination because it is based on unverified 
questionnaire response information. Using Sidor's unverified 
information as the basis for the final margin could possibly reward the 
respondent by assigning a margin lower than what would have been 
calculated using verified information. As noted above, in cases such as 
this one, the Department relies on the facts otherwise available, 
normally data from the petition, for making its determination. We have 
no basis in this instance to depart from this practice. Normally, the 
all-others rate is to be amount equal to the weighted average of the 
estimated weighted average dumping margins for exporters and producers 
individually investigated, excluding margins based entirely on facts 
available. Section 735(c)(5)(A). However, if all of the estimated 
dumping margins are based entirely on facts available, the statute 
permits the Department to use any reasonable method to establish the 
all others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(B). As discussed above, Sidor was 
the only respondent in this investigation and its margin was based 
entirely on facts available. The margin calculated for Sidor for 
purposes of the preliminary results of this investigation cannot serve 
as a reasonable all others rate because, as discussed above, it has not 
been verified. Further, there is no other information on which to base 
an all others rate. Accordingly, we have based the all others rate on 
Sidor's rate.

Suspension of Liquidation

    On February 13, 1998, pursuant to section 734(b) the Act, the 
Department signed a suspension agreement, with SIDOR. Pursuant to 
section 734(f)(2)(A) of the Act, we are instructing Customs to 
terminate the suspension of liquidation of all entries of steel wire 
rod from Venezuela. Any cash deposits of entries of steel wire rod from 
Venezuela shall be refunded and any bonds released.
    On February 13, 1998, we received a request from Sidor requesting 
that we continue the investigation. As a result of this request, we 
have continued and completed the investigation in accordance with 
section 734(g) of the Act. We have found the following margins of 
dumping:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Exporter/manufacturer                      percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVG Siderurgica Del Orinoco C.A. (``Sidor'')...............        66.75
All Others.................................................        66.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In Accordance with section 734(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our determination is affirmative, the ITC 
will determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing 
material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the 
United States. If the ITC's injury determination is negative, the 
agreement will have no force or effect. See section 734(f)(3)(A) of the 
Act. If the ITC's injury determination is affirmative, the Department 
will not issue an antidumping duty order as long as the suspension 
agreement remains in force, the agreement continues to meet the 
requirements of subsections (b) and (d) of section 734 of the Act, and 
the parties to the agreement carry out their obligations under the 
agreement in accordance with its terms. See section 734(f)(3)(B) of the 
Act.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act.

    Dated: February 13, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-4538 Filed 2-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P