[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20580-20585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10997]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-423-808, A-122-830, A-475-822, A-791-805, A-580-831 and A-583-830]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel 
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of South Africa, 
South Korea and Taiwan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Presing (Belgium), at (202) 482-
0194; Maureen McPhillips (Canada), at (202) 482-0193; Rick Johnson 
(Italy, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan) at (202) 482-3818; Robert James 
(Republic of South Africa), at (202) 482-5222, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the regulations published in the 
Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

The Petition

    On March 31, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received a petition filed in proper form by Armco, Inc., J&L Specialty 
Steel, Inc.1, Lukens, Inc., North American Stainless 
2, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC 
3, the Butler Armco Independent Union and the Zanesville 
Armco Independent Organization, Inc. (petitioners). The Department 
received supplemental information to the petition on April 14, 15, 17 
and 20, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ J&L Speciality Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner in the 
Belgium case.
    \2\ North American Stainless is not a petitioner in the Italy 
case.
    \3\ The United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC is not a 
petitioner in the Canada case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioners allege 
that imports of stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium, 
Canada, Italy, Republic of South Africa, Republic of Korea and

[[Page 20581]]

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and 
that such imports are materially injuring an industry in the United 
States.
    The Department finds that petitioners filed the petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to each of the antidumping 
investigations they are requesting the Department to initiate (see 
Discussion below).

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is 
certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in 
width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or 
otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject 
plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.) 
provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following 
such processing. Excluded from the scope of this petition are the 
following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or 
otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and 
strip, and (4) flat bars.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 
7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55, 
7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.
    During our review of the petition, we discussed scope with the 
petitioners to insure that the scope in the petition accurately 
reflects the product for which they are seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the new regulations (62 FR 27323), we are 
setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments 
by May 8, 1998. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
Central Record Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period 
of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to 
the issuance of the preliminary determination.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production 
of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771 (10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, 
the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    The domestic like product referred to in the petition is the single 
domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section, above. The Department has no basis on the record to find the 
petition's definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. 
The Department has, therefore, adopted the domestic like product 
definition set forth in the petition. In this case, the Department has 
determined that the petition and supplemental information to the 
petition contain adequate evidence of sufficient industry support. For 
all countries, producers and workers supporting the petition represent 
over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product. 
Therefore, polling was not necessary. Accordingly, the Department 
determines that the petition is filed on behalf of the domestic 
industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
    On April 14, 1998, Atlas Stainless Steels (Sammi Atlas), a producer 
of SSPC in Canada, requested that the Department poll the domestic 
industry regarding its support for the petition as required by 19 
U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A). Sammi Atlas alleges that the petitioners are not 
sufficiently representative of a domestic industry to permit them to 
maintain a petition on stainless steel plate in coils from Canada 
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A)(ii). Sammi Atlas argues that the 
petitioners overstated their share of U.S. production of SSPC by 
including the further processing of largely-imported products into 
SSPC. Moreover, Sammi Atlas contends that the petitioners have inflated 
production volumes of two other petitioning companies. Therefore, Sammi 
Atlas maintains that after the exclusion of the further-processed 
production volumes and the application of the correct U.S. production 
volumes, the petitioners fail to have enough support for the petition, 
as required in section 732(b)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Atlas 
requests that the Department poll the domestic stainless plate industry 
to determine whether there is industry support for the petition with 
respect to Canada, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A).

[[Page 20582]]

    In response to Sammi Atlas' submission, the Department requested 
and received affidavits from each of the petitioning companies 
testifying to the accuracy of the production volumes of SPPC reported 
in the petition. In addition, we contacted Armco and North American 
Stainless to obtain additional information which corroborated their 
affidavits. While both parties have submitted affidavits in support of 
their production volumes, we believe that the individual affidavits 
from each petitioning company for their own production lend more 
credibility to the petitioners' production volumes than those submitted 
by the Canadian producer, Sammi Atlas. Even if North American Stainless 
were not included as a producer of SSPC, producers supporting the 
petition still account for more that 50% of total production of 
domestic like product. Therefore, the issue of whether or not North 
American is a producer of the subject merchandise is moot. Accordingly, 
the Department has determined that the petition was filed on behalf of 
the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the 
Act (see, Memorandum to the file, dated April 20, 1998).

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which our decisions to initiate these 
investigations are based. Should the need arise to use any of this 
information in our preliminary or final determinations for purposes of 
facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may re-examine the 
information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Belgium

    The petitioners identified ALZ, N.V. (ALZ), Cockerill Sambre S.A., 
and Fabrique de Fer Charleroi as possible exporters of SSPC from 
Belgium. The petitioners further identified ALZ as the sole producer of 
subject merchandise in Belgium. The petitioners based export price (EP) 
for ALZ on U.S. sales prices (from foreign market research) for the 
first sales to unaffiliated purchasers in January 1998. Because the 
terms of ALZ's U.S. sales were delivered to the U.S. customer, the 
petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting estimated costs 
for shipment from ALZ's factory in Belgium to the port of export (from 
foreign market research). In addition, the petitioners subtracted ocean 
freight, insurance (from official year U.S. import statistics), and 
estimated costs for U.S. import duties and fees (from the 1997 HTSUS 
schedule). Petitioners also subtracted amounts for the U.S. harbor 
maintenance fee and U.S. merchandise processing fee (19 CFR, 
Secs. 24.23 and 24.24). Finally, the petitioners obtained net U.S. 
prices by also subtracting costs incurred to transport the merchandise 
from the U.S. port to the customer's location in the United States 
(from affidavit from petitioners), and credit expenses.
    With respect to normal value (NV), based on information available 
to them, petitioners determined that volume of Belgium home market 
sales was sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained gross 
unit prices (from foreign market research) for the products offered for 
sale to customers in Belgium which are either identical or similar to 
those sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by 
subtracting estimated average delivery costs and credit expenses (from 
foreign market research). Petitioners provided information 
demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
SSPC in the home market provided in the petition were made at prices 
below the cost of production (COP), within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-
wide sales below cost investigation. Because one of the home market 
sales used in the petition was below the calculated COP, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners based NV for 
that sale in Belgium on constructed value (CV).
    Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of 
materials, fabrication, other processing (i.e., cost of manufacturing 
(COM)) and selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and 
profit. To calculate COM and SG&A, the petitioners relied on market 
research data, and ALZ's 1996 financial statements. The petitioners 
added to CV an amount for profit obtained from ALZ's 1996 financial 
statements.
    The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on a 
comparison between ALZ's U.S. prices and CV, are 12.06 percent and 16 
percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market prices, petitioners 
calculated dumping margins are 9.33 percent.

Canada

    The petitioners identified Atlas Stainless Steels (Sammi Atlas), 
Division of Sammi Atlas, Inc., a member of the Sammi Group, a major 
South Korean producer of stainless steel products, as the sole Canadian 
producer of SSPC. Therefore, the petitioners conclude that Sammi Atlas 
accounts for substantially all Canadian exports of SSPC to the United 
States.
    The petitioners based EP on two of Sammi Atlas' export sales to 
steel service centers/distributors in the United States (from domestic 
industry sources). To calculate the net export price for the first U.S. 
sale, dated September 1997, petitioners deducted estimated U.S. inland 
freight (from the experience of U.S. producers), international freight 
and insurance (from the 1997 HTSUS schedule), customs duties, harbor 
maintenance, merchandise processing fees (from official year U.S. 
import statistics), and foreign inland freight (from affidavit from 
petitioners).
    Because the terms of the gross unit price of the February 1998 sale 
to the U.S. were ex-mill, duty-paid, petitioners adjusted the gross 
unit price by subtracting U.S. import duties, harbor maintenance, and 
merchandise processing fees.
    With respect to NV, based on information available to them, 
petitioners determined that the volume of Canadian home market sales 
was sufficient to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners used the prices for two 
home market sales of SSPC made in May 1997 and February 1998 by Sammi 
Atlas to unaffiliated steel service centers. Since the gross unit price 
of the May 1997 sale was on an FOB basis with 30-day payment terms, 
they calculated the net home market price for this sale to the first 
unaffiliated customer by subtracting the estimated credit expense (from 
``International Financial Statistics'' of the International Monetary 
Fund).
    The gross unit price for the February 1998 sale of the same product 
included an amount for an alloy surcharge and inland freight charges 
(from foreign marker research). Petitioners subtracted from the price 
to the unaffiliated customer these two items and an amount reflecting 
estimated credit expenses for the 30-day payment (from foreign marker 
research) terms to yield the net home market price in Canadian dollars. 
The two Canadian home market sales were then converted to U.S. dollar 
prices using the official exchange rate in effect on the month of the 
comparison U.S. sale.
    The two price comparisons of EP to NV yield dumping margins of 
15.35 percent and 6.85 percent, respectively.

Italy

    The petitioners identified Arinox Srl (Arinox) as an exporter and 
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (AST) as an exporter and producer of SSPC 
from Italy.

[[Page 20583]]

Petitioners relied on price information for AST, basing EP on U.S. 
sales prices obtained by two of the petitioning companies for sales to 
an unaffiliated purchaser in November 1997. The petitioners calculated 
a net U.S. price by subtracting amounts for foreign inland freight 
(from foreign market research), U.S. inland freight (from an affidavit 
from petitioners), international freight and insurance (the average 
difference in the C.I.F. values and the U.S. Customs values reported in 
the official U.S. import statistics for 1997), U.S. harbor maintenance 
and U.S. merchandise processing fees (19 CFR, Secs. 24.23 and 24.24), 
and estimated costs for U.S. import duties (from the 1997 HTSUS 
schedule). Imputed credit was also deducted from export price for the 
price-to-price comparison (lending rate as published in International 
Financial Statistics).
    With respect to NV, based on information reasonably available to 
them, petitioners determined that the volume of Italian home market 
sales was sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained gross 
unit prices from a foreign market research for products offered for 
sale to customers in Italy which are either identical or similar to 
those sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by 
subtracting estimated average delivery costs (from foreign market 
research). Petitioners did not adjust for packing costs because 
petitioners claim that packing for export is more expensive than 
packing for domestic shipment.
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that the sales of stainless steel plate in coils 
in the home market provided in the petition were made at prices below 
COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested 
that the Department conduct a country-wide sales below cost 
investigation. Because the home market sales used in the petition were 
below the calculated COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of 
the Act, the petitioners also based NV for sales in Italy on CV.
    CV consists of COM, SG&A, and profit. The petitioners calculated 
the direct portion of COM based on Italian costs obtained through 
foreign market research. To calculate the indirect portion of COM, 
SG&A, and profit, the petitioners relied on public information and the 
1995 financial statements of AST, which were provided in the petition.
    The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on a 
comparison between AST's U.S. price and the CV, range from 49.99 to 
59.02 percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market price, 
petitioners calculate a dumping margin range from 11.36 percent to 
34.59 percent.

Republic of South Africa

    Petitioners identified two South African exporters and producers of 
stainless steel coiled plate: Columbus Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. 
(Columbus) and Iscor Ltd. (Iscor). Petitioners noted that, to the best 
of their knowledge, Columbus accounted for over 90 percent of the 
exports of subject merchandise from The Republic of South Africa. 
Petitioners based EP on two duty-paid, delivered price quotes made by 
Columbus to unaffiliated U.S. steel service centers/distributors. The 
quoted prices were for two grades of coiled plate during the fourth 
quarter of 1997.
    Because the terms of Columbus' U.S. sales were delivered to the 
U.S. customer, the petitioners made deductions for international 
freight and insurance, average U.S. inland freight charges (from the 
experience of U.S. producers.) from the U.S. port to all U.S. purchaser 
locations, U.S. import duties, and harbor maintenance and merchandise 
processing fees. To calculate international freight and insurance, 
petitioners divided import charges by the weight of imported coiled 
plate from The Republic of South Africa in 1997 for the two HTS numbers 
named in the petition. Petitioners used the specific ad valorem harbor 
maintenance and merchandise processing fees that U.S. Customs levies on 
imported merchandise.
    With respect to normal value (from foreign market research), 
petitioners determined that the volume of South African home market 
sales was sufficient to form a basis for NV pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained two price quotes 
from Columbus for coiled plate offered for sale to customers in The 
Republic of South Africa which are either identical or similar to those 
sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices for 
estimated inland freight, packing and credit expenses. Petitioners 
provided information alleging that the sales of SSPC in the home market 
provided in the petition were made at prices below the COP, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department 
conduct a sales below cost investigation. However, based on our review 
of the foreign market research and a discussion with the foreign market 
researcher whose data formed the basis for petitioners' below-cost 
allegation, the Department has found that the information contained in 
the petition did not provide reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that sales in the home market have been made at below COP.
    The estimated dumping margins in the petition based on a comparison 
between U.S. prices and NV are 14.09 percent to 19.46 percent.

Republic of Korea

    The petitioners identified Pohang Iron and Steel Company (POSCO) 
and Sammi Steel Company (Sammi) as exporters and producers of SSPC from 
the Republic of Korea. The petitioners based export price on price 
quotations obtained by two of the petitioning companies for sales to 
unaffiliated U.S. purchasers of SSPC manufactured by POSCO. The quoted 
prices were (with the exception of one sale) delivered, duty paid sales 
of SSPC sold during the first, third, and fourth quarters of 1997. 
Petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting from the 
reported U.S. price estimated shipment costs from POSCO's factory in 
Korea to the port of export (from foreign market research), costs for 
ocean freight and insurance (the average import charges reported in 
official U.S. import statistics for Korea), import duties (1997 HTSUS 
schedule), harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees (19 CFR 
24.23 and 24.24) and domestic inland freight (from affidavit provided 
by one of the petitioning companies).
    With respect to NV, based on information available to them, 
petitioners determined that the volume of South Korean home market 
sales was sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained gross 
unit prices from market research for SSPC manufactured by POSCO and 
offered for sale to customers in the Republic of Korea which are either 
identical or similar to those sold to the United States. Petitioners 
adjusted these prices by subtracting estimated average delivery costs 
(from foreign market research).
    Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales of SSPC in the home market provided in 
the petition were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a 
country-wide sales below cost investigation. Because the home market 
sales used in the petition were below the calculated COP, pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act, petitioners based NV

[[Page 20584]]

for sales in The Republic of Korea on CV.
    Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, 
SG&A, and profit. The petitioners calculated the direct portion of COM 
based on South Korean costs obtained through market research. To 
calculate the indirect portion of COM, SG&A and CV profit, petitioners 
relied on POSCO's 1996 financial statements. Based on comparisons of EP 
to CV, petitioners estimated margins range from 30.96 to 35.78 percent. 
Based on a comparison of EP to home market price, estimated dumping 
margins range from 4.20 percent to 11.97 percent.

Taiwan

    The petitioners identified Chang Mien Industries Co., Ltd. (Chang 
Mien), Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far), Chien Shing 
Stainless Steel (Chien Shing), China Steel Corp. (China Steel), Tang 
Eng Iron Works, Co., Ltd (Tang Eng), Tung Mung Development Co. Ltd. 
(Tung Mung), and Yieh United Steel Corp. (Yieh United) as exporters and 
producers of SSPC from Taiwan. The petitioners based EP on price 
quotations made to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of 
importation. The quoted prices were for delivered and duty paid SSPC 
during the fourth quarter of 1997. Petitioners calculated net U.S. 
price by subtracting amounts for international freight and insurance 
(the average import charges reported in the official U.S. import 
statistics under the 1997 HTS subheading 7219.12.0045 from Taiwan), 
U.S. import duties (from the 1997 HTSUS schedule) and harbor 
maintenance and merchandise processing fees (19 CFR 24.23 and 24.24) 
from the quoted prices. Finally, petitioners obtained net U.S. prices 
by also subtracting cost incurred to transport the merchandise from the 
U.S. port to the customer's location in the United States (from an 
affidavit from petitioner).
    With respect to NV, based on information available to them, 
petitioners determined that the volume of Taiwanese home market sales 
was sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to section 
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained gross unit prices 
from foreign market research for sales of SSPC by Tang Eng and Tung 
Mung which are either identical or similar to those sold to the United 
States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by subtracting amounts for 
inland freight and packaging (from foreign market research). 
Petitioners submitted information alleging that the sales of SSPC in 
the home market provided in the petition were made at prices below COP, 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales below cost investigation. 
However, based on our review of the foreign market research study and a 
discussion with the foreign market researcher whose data formed the 
basis for petitioners' below-cost allegation, the Department has found 
that the information contained in the petition did not provide 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in the home market 
have been made at below COP.
    The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on a 
comparison between Tang Eng's and Tung Mung's U.S. prices and home 
market price, range from 0.29 to 8.02 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, petitioners provided 
information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales in the home markets of Belgium, Italy, and the Republic of Korea 
were made at prices below the fully allocated COP and, accordingly, 
requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales below COP 
investigation in connection with the requested antidumping 
investigations in each of these countries. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (``SAA''), submitted to the Congress in 
connection with the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be 
specific to individual exporters or producers. SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 
103d Cong., 2d Sess., at 833 (1994). The SAA, at 833, states that 
``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the 
aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers 
allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis 
for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.''
    Further, the SAA provides that ``new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains 
the current requirement that Commerce have `reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect' that below cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation. `Reasonable grounds' * * * exist when 
an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and 
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign 
market in question are at below-cost prices.'' Id. Based upon the 
comparison of the adjusted prices from the petition of the 
representative foreign like products in their respective home markets 
to their costs of production, we find the existence of ``reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect'' that sales of these foreign like 
products in each of the listed countries were made below their 
respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating the requested country-
wide cost investigations, except with regard to Taiwan and Republic of 
South Africa. (see Country specific sections above.)

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of SSPC from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of 
Korea, The Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan are being, or are 
likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petition alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners explained 
that the industry injured condition is evident in the declining trends 
in net operating profits, net sales volumes, profit to sales ratios and 
capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and causation are 
supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs import data, lost 
sales and pricing information. The Department assessed the allegations 
and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation and 
determined that these allegations are sufficiently supported by 
accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petition on SSPC, as well as our 
discussion with the authors of the foreign market research reports 
(see, Memoranda to the file, dated April 20, 1998), we have found that 
the petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. 
Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to 
determine whether imports of SSPC from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic 
of Korea, Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan are being, or are likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this 
deadline is extended, we will make our preliminary determinations by 
September 8, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of each petition has been

[[Page 20585]]

provided to the representatives of Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of 
Korea, Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan. We will attempt to provide 
a copy of the public version of each petition to each exporter named in 
the petition (as appropriate).

International Trade Commission Notification

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

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by May 15, 1998, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of SSPC from Belgium, Canada, Italy, 
Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan are causing 
material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. 
industry. A negative ITC determination will, for any country, result in 
the investigations being terminated with respect to that country; 
otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to Section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 20, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-10997 Filed 4-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P