[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59535-59540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29547]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-831]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (``SSPC'') From the Republic of 
Korea

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy or Rick Johnson, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0165 or (202) 482-3818, 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 of Commerce 
(``Department'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351, 
62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that Stainless Steel Plates in Coils 
(``SSPC'') from the Republic of Korea are being, or are 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 of sales at 
LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

Case History

    On April 20, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
investigations of imports of stainless steel plate in coils from 
Belgium,

[[Page 59536]]

Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan (Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Stainless Steel Plates in 
Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan 
(63 FR 20580, April 27, 1998)(``Notice of Initiation'')). Since the 
initiation of this investigation the following events have occurred:
    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. On May 8, 1998, petitioners 
Armco, Inc.; J&L Specialty Steel Inc.; Lukens, Inc.; North American 
Stainless; the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC; the Butler 
Armco Independent Union: and the Zanesville Armco Independent 
Organization, Inc. (``petitioners'') submitted comments to the 
Department stating that while they believed the scope of the 
investigations was accurate, they wished to clarify certain issues 
concerning product coverage.
    In May 1998, the Department requested information from the U.S. 
Embassy in the Republic of Korea to identify producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise. In May 1998, the Department also requested and 
received comments from the petitioners and potential respondents in 
these investigations regarding the model matching criteria.
    On May 15, 1998, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury 
determination in this case.
    On May 27, 1998, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Pohang Iron and Steel Company (``POSCO'') and Sammi 
Steel Company, Ltd. (``Sammi'').
    On July 1, 1998, the Department received the response to Section A 
of the questionnaire from POSCO. Additionally, on July 13, 1998, the 
Department received a letter from Sammi stating that it did not export 
the subject merchandise to the United States during 1997. We received 
POSCO's responses to Sections B, C and D of the questionnaire on July 
20, 1998. Petitioners filed comments on POSCO's questionnaire responses 
in July, August, and September 1998. We issued supplemental 
questionnaires for Sections A, B, C and D to POSCO on July 13, August 
4, September 16, September 17, 1998, and October 7, 1998, and received 
responses to these questionnaires in July, August, September and 
October 1998.
    On July 28, 1998, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, 
petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary 
determination for thirty days. The Department determined that this 
investigation was extraordinarily complicated and that additional time 
was necessary beyond the thirty days requested by petitioners for the 
Department to make its preliminary determination. On August 14, 1998, 
the Department postponed the preliminary determination fifty days until 
October 27, 1998. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, 
Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan; Notice of 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 63 FR 44840 (August 21, 1998).
    On August 20, 1998, petitioners amended the antidumping petitions 
to include Allegheny Ludlum Corporation as an additional petitioner.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, 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.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 1997, through 
December 31, 1997.

Transactions Reviewed

    POSCO reported that it made sales of the subject merchandise to 
affiliated resellers during the POI. On September 16, 1998, the 
Department requested that POSCO report the home market downstream sales 
made by its affiliated service centers (see September 16, 1998 
supplemental questionnaire). Thus, in determining normal value (``NV'') 
(see ``Normal Value'' section of the notice, below), the Department 
excluded POSCO's sales to the affiliated service centers and considered 
the affiliates' resales of the subject merchandise.
    POSCO reported that it made local letter of credit sales (``local 
sales'') in the home market which are exempted from value-added tax 
requirements because the end-user intends to export its finished 
product. Because the statute at section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) defines ``the 
price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the 
absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting 
country * * *,'' we are disregarding home market local sales because 
there is knowledge that these sales are not consumed in the foreign 
market (emphasis added).
    For its home market transactions, POSCO has reported the date of 
invoice as the date of sale, i.e., the date when price and quantity are 
finalized. However, petitioners have alleged that the home market sales 
documentation provided by POSCO did not appear to support POSCO's claim 
that price and quantity may change between order and invoice. In August 
1998, the Department requested that POSCO describe the type and 
frequency of price and quantity changes between order and invoice. 
Based on its analysis of the information submitted by POSCO, the 
Department found that it required additional information to determine 
if date of invoice is the appropriate date of sale. As POSCO's 
supplemental response was not due until October 30, 1998, the 
Department has not considered this issue for the preliminary 
determination. Therefore for the preliminary determination, the 
Department is using the invoice date as the date of sale for home 
market sales. We intend to revisit this issue after incorporating the 
revised data into our analysis and verifying the accuracy of that data.
    In calculating export price (``EP'') (see ``Export Price'' section 
of the notice, below), the Department determined that those U.S. sales 
for which POSCO was

[[Page 59537]]

not paid should be excluded from the U.S. database.
    For its U.S. sales, POSCO has reported the date of invoice as the 
date of sale, i.e., the date when price and quantity are finalized. For 
U.S. sales, petitioners also alleged that the invoice date may not be 
the appropriate date of sale. Similarly, the Department requested and 
received additional information from POSCO on its use of invoice date 
as the date of sale. As described above, the Department found that it 
did not have enough information to make a determination whether invoice 
date was the appropriate date of sale and requested additional 
information from POSCO that was not due until October 30, 1998. 
Therefore for the preliminary determination, the Department is using 
the invoice date as the date of sale for U.S. sales. We intend to 
revisit this issue after incorporating the revised data into our 
analysis and verifying the accuracy of that data.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the 
Scope of Investigation section, above, and sold in the home market 
during the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 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 the antidumping 
duty questionnaire and the May 27, 1998 reporting instructions.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of SSPC from the Republic of Korea to 
the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared EP to 
NV. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated weighted-average EPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or constructed export price 
(``CEP'') transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales 
in the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed value 
(``CV''), that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level 
of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than CEP, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In this case, POSCO did not claim an LOT adjustment. The Department 
notes that in its July 1, 1998 response, POSCO stated that the 
downstream sales made by the affiliated service centers were at a 
different level of trade than other sales made by POSCO in the POI to 
both the U.S. and home market. However, it its October 5, 1998 response 
on downstream sales, POSCO reported that all sales in the U.S. and home 
market were made at the same level of trade. To ensure that no such 
adjustment was necessary, in accordance with principles discussed 
above, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in 
both the United States and Korean markets, including the selling 
functions, classes of customer and selling expenses.
    In both the U.S. market and the HM market, POSCO reported one level 
of trade. POSCO sold through three channels of distribution in the U.S. 
market: (1) From POSCO Steel Sales and Services Co., Ltd. 
(``POSTEEL''), POSCO's affiliated company responsible for the majority 
of home market sales and all U.S. sales, to one unaffiliated end-user; 
(2) from POSTEEL through Pohang Steel American Corp. (``POSAM''), 
POSCO's U.S. subsidiary; and (3) from POSTEEL to unaffiliated Korean 
trading companies for resale in the U.S. POSCO also sold through three 
channels of distribution in the home market: (1) Directly from its mill 
to two unaffiliated end users; and (2) through POSTEEL to unaffiliated 
end-users and domestic trading companies. Additionally, POSCO has 
reported the home market downstream sales in HM Channel 3. The 
affiliates' resales were made exclusively to end-users with one 
exception.
    For sales in HM Channel 1, POSCO performed all sales-related 
activities including arranging for freight and delivery, providing 
computerized accounting and sales systems, market research, warranty, 
sales negotiation, after sales service, and quality control. The same 
selling functions were performed in HM Channel 2; however, it was 
POSTEEL, not POSCO which performed all the major selling functions. 
Finally, in HM Channel 3, POSCO stated that the affiliated resellers 
sold their sales on a delivered or ex-factory basis.
    POSCO performed similar selling functions in the U.S. market as in 
the home market including making freight and delivery arrangements and 
offering warranties and technical advice. As in sales in HM Channel 2, 
POSTEEL performed the major selling functions for U.S., regardless of 
channel of distribution. POSTEEL made the international freight 
arrangements except in the case of U.S. Channel 3 in which it sold FOB 
Pohang Port. Also, in U.S. Channel 2, POSAM invoiced the U.S. customer 
and for many sales, arranged for delivery to the customer from the U.S. 
port. Finally, as in the home market, POSCO reported that it did not 
provide inventory maintenance or advertising in the U.S. market.
    Therefore, based on the information on the record, we preliminarily 
conclude that POSCO performed similar selling functions in the U.S. 
market and HM Channels 1 and 2 and that a LOT adjustment is not 
warranted for comparisons between the U.S. market and HM Channels 1 and 
2. However, as POSCO's response detailing the type of selling functions 
performed by the affiliated service centers was not due until October 
30, 1998, the Department could not make a determination for this 
preliminary determination whether the affiliated service centers' 
resales (HM Channel 3) were sold at a different level of trade than 
other home market channels or U.S. channels. Thus, the Department will 
consider this issue for the final determination. For a further 
discussion of the Department's LOT analysis, see Memorandum to the 
File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination, October 
27, 1998.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

    We based our calculation on EP, in accordance with section 772 (a) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise

[[Page 59538]]

was sold by the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP 
methodology was not otherwise indicated.
    POSCO classified all of its sales of the subject merchandise in the 
United States as EP sales in its questionnaire response, including 
those sales made prior to importation through POSAM, POSCO's wholly 
owned U.S. subsidiary. We examined several factors to determine whether 
sales made prior to importation through POSAM to an unaffiliated 
customer in the United States are EP sales. These factors are: (1) 
whether the merchandise was shipped directly from the manufacturer to 
the unaffiliated U.S. customer without being introduced into the 
physical inventory of the affiliated selling agent; (2) whether the 
sales follow customary commercial channels between the parties 
involved; and (3) whether the function of the U.S. selling agent is 
limited to that of a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a 
``communication link'' with the unrelated U.S. buyer. Where the factors 
indicate that the activities of the U.S. selling agent are ancillary to 
the sale (e.g., arranging transportation or customs clearance), we 
treat the transactions as EP sales. Where the U.S. selling agent is 
substantially involved in the sales process (e.g., negotiating prices), 
we treat the transactions as CEP sales. See Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 18389, 18391 (April 15, 1997); Mitsubishi 
Heavy Industries v. United States, Slip Op. 98-82 at 6 (CIT, June 23, 
1998).
    Concerning the first two criteria, the record indicates that 
POSCO's sales through POSAM were shipped directly from the manufacturer 
to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and that this was the customary 
commercial channel. In determining whether the U.S. affiliate acted 
solely as a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a 
``communication link'' with the unaffiliated U.S. customer, we reviewed 
the selling functions performed by POSAM and the sales process for 
these sales. Although POSAM performed a variety of selling functions on 
behalf of POSCO in connection with POSCO's SSPC sales in the United 
States, including forwarding inquiries and confirmations to and from 
the customer and POSTEEL, invoicing customers, arranging for freight to 
the customer from the U.S. port, collecting payment, and serving as 
importer of record, POSCO has stated that POSTEEL determined price and 
terms of sale and performed all other sales related activities. We will 
conduct an in-depth examination of the most appropriate classification 
of POSCO's U.S. sales through POSAM (i.e., CEP versus EP) at 
verification. However, based on POSCO's record statements, we 
preliminarily determine that POSCO's U.S. sales of SSPC through POSAM 
qualify as EP sales. For further discussion of this issue, see 
Memorandum to the File: Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Determination for POSCO, October 27, 1998.
    We based EP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, brokerage 
and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight 
(where applicable), U.S. brokerage and wharfage charges (where 
applicable) and U.S. Customs duties in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an 
amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. 
For a further discussion of this issue, see Memorandum to the File: 
Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination for POSCO, 
October 27, 1998. As noted in the ``Transactions Reviewed'' section of 
the notice, above, the Department's use of POSCO's date of invoice as 
the date of sale for the U.S. in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) is 
dependent upon the results of our analysis.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections of this 
notice.

Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared the 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. Since 
POSCO'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. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on the cost allegation submitted by the petitioners in the 
petition, the Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that POSCO had made sales in the home market at prices below the cost 
of producing the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(2)(A)(i) 
of the Act. As a result the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether POSCO made home market sales during the POI at prices 
below their respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act. See Notice of Initiation.
    When the annual inflation rate in the country under investigation 
exceeds 25 percent, the Department considers that inflation to be 
significant and often uses a modified questionnaire. See, e.g., Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta 
from Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30315 (June 14, 1996).
    Although the inflation rate in Korea in December 1997, was 8.19 
percent, the annual inflation rate during the POI did not exceed 25% 
(see International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics: 
Producer Prices (July 1998; March 1998; December 1997; July 1997)). 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that it is not appropriate to 
send out the Department's modified cost questionnaire in this case.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of POSCO's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus amounts for home market SG&A, interest 
expenses, and packing costs. We used the information from POSCO's 
Section D supplemental questionnaire response to calculate COP.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP for POSCO, adjusted where 
appropriate (see above), to home market sales of the foreign like 
product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining 
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the 
COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, such 
sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made 
at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to 
home market prices, less any applicable movement

[[Page 59539]]

charges and direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
quantities'', 773(b)(2)(c)(i), within an extended period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases because 
we compared prices to weighted-average COPs for the POI , we also 
determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices 
below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.
D. Calculation of CV
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
interest expenses and profit. We calculated the COP included in the 
calculation of CV as noted above, in the ``Calculation of COP'' section 
of the notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the 
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.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers. We made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market 
customers. We made a deduction for inland freight. We made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments or deductions for credit, warranty 
expense and interest revenue, where appropriate. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    Our preliminary analysis of Federal Reserve dollar-won exchange 
rate data shows that the won declined rapidly at the end of 1997, 
losing over 40% of its value between the beginning of November and the 
end of December. The decline was, in both speed and magnitude, many 
times more severe than any change in the dollar-won exchange rate 
during the previous eight years. Had the won rebounded quickly enough 
to recover all or almost all of the initial loss, the Department might 
have been inclined to view the won's decline at the end of 1997 as 
nothing more than a sudden, but only momentary drop, despite the 
magnitude of that drop. As it was, however, there was no significant 
rebound. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the decline 
in the won at the end of 1997 was so precipitous and large that the 
dollar-won exchange rate cannot reasonably be viewed as having simply 
fluctuated during this time, i.e., as having experienced only a 
momentary drop in value. Therefore, in making this preliminary 
determination, the Department used daily rates exclusively for currency 
conversion purposes for HM sales matched to U.S. sales occurring 
between November 1 and December 31, 1997.
    The Department makes this determination without the benefit of 
extensive case precedent dealing with this area of our currency 
conversion policy. The Department therefore welcomes comments from 
interested parties on all aspects of our analysis and the time period-
specific exchange rates used. For the purposes of the final 
determination, the Department will also analyze the implications, if 
any, of the decline in the won during 1997 for price averaging and 
whether multiple averages are warranted. The Department is studying 
this issue in Mushrooms from Indonesia. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia, 63 FR 
41783 (August 5, 1998).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon 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 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the export price, as indicated in the 
chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain 
in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/Manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSCO......................................................         2.77
All Others.................................................         2.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying 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

    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 the preliminary 
determination, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than 55 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination. 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 section 774 of the Act, 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 57 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination, time and room 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 time.

[[Page 59540]]

    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 30 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. 
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If 
this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination by January 10, 1999.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 27, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-29547 Filed 11-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P