[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92-101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34461]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-825]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination; Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Germany

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Ranado, Robert James, or 
Stephanie Arthur at (202) 482-3518, (202) 482-5222 or (202) 482-6312, 
respectively, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group 
III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.

Applicable Statute and Regulations:

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the 
Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (May 19, 
1998).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that stainless steel sheet and strip in 
coil (SSSS) from Germany 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 Tariff Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown 
in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

[[Page 93]]

Case History

    On June 30, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
investigations of imports of SSSS from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 
Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. See Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, 
and the United Kingdom, 63 FR 37521 (July 13, 1998) (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. Between July and October 1998, 
Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Armco, Inc., J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., 
Washington Steel Division of Bethlehem Steel Corporation (formerly 
Lukens, Inc.), the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the 
Butler Armco Independent Union and the Zanesville Armco Independent 
Organization, Inc. (collectively, petitioners) filed comments proposing 
clarifications to the scope of these investigations. Also, from July 
through October 1998, the Department received numerous responses from 
respondents aimed at clarifying the scope of the investigations.
    During July 1998, the Department requested information from the 
U.S. Embassy in Germany to identify producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise. On July 21, 1998, the Department also requested comments 
from petitioners, two potential respondents, Krupp Thyssen Nirosta GmbH 
(KTN), and Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH (Ergste), and the Embassy of 
Germany in Washington regarding the criteria to be used for model 
matching purposes. On July 27, 1998, KTN and petitioners submitted 
comments on our proposed model-matching criteria.
    Also on July 24, 1998, the United States International Trade 
Commission (the Commission) notified the Department of its affirmative 
preliminary injury determination in this case.
    The Department subsequently issued antidumping questionnaires to 
KTN and Ergste on August 3, 1998. The questionnaire is divided into 
five parts; we requested that KTN and Ergste respond to Section A 
(general information, corporate structure, sales practices, and 
merchandise produced), Section B (home market or third-country sales), 
Section C (U.S. sales), and Section D (cost of production/constructed 
value).
    On August 21, 1998, Ergste wrote the Department requesting that it 
be exempt from the investigation due to the fact that it was a small 
German producer ``accounting for a minimal share of imports of subject 
merchandise from Germany, a sub-minimal portion of all imports, and a 
microscopic part of U.S. apparent consumption.'' Ergste's August 21, 
1998 submission at 1 and 2. On September 3, 1998, petitioners submitted 
a letter to the Department stating that it did not object to Ergste's 
withdrawal request. Therefore, due to its negligible imports during the 
period of investigation (POI) and because petitioners agreed to the 
request, on September 9, 1998, we consented to Ergste's request to be 
excused as a mandatory respondent in the investigation (see Germany 
Respondent Selection Memo For Richard Weible, September 9, 1998).
    KTN submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on 
September 8, 1998; KTN's responses to sections B through D followed on 
September 29, 1998. Petitioners filed comments on KTN's questionnaire 
responses in September and October 1998. We issued the following 
supplemental questionnaires: (i) Section A to KTN on October 9, 1998; 
(ii) Sections B and C on October 27, 1998; and, (iii) Section D on 
November 2, 1998. KTN responded to our Section A supplemental on 
October 23, 1998, and to Sections B through D on November 16, 1998.
    On October 6, 1998, petitioners made a timely request for a thirty-
day postponement of the preliminary determination pursuant to section 
733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act. The Department determined that these 
concurrent investigations warranted the thirty-day postponement 
requested by petitioners. On October 23, 1998, we postponed the 
preliminary determination until no later than December 17, 1998. See 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, France, Germany, 
Mexico, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan; Notice of 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 63 FR 56909 (October 23, 1998).

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain stainless steel sheet and strip 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 sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7219.13.00.30, 7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70, 
7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 
7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 
7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 
7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 
7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 
7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 
7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 
7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 
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, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 
7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 
7220.20.90.60, 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 Department's written description 
of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following: 
(1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and 
pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to 
length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a 
thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled 
sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not 
more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a 
flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-
rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and 
a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 
percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades.

[[Page 94]]

See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties the Department has 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. These excluded products 
are described below:
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of this investigation. This stainless 
steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 
and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb 
structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel 
contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of 
no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, 
chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 
percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more 
than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and 
total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance 
iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. This ductile stainless 
steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.'' 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 'Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this investigation. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this investigation. This high-strength, 
ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified 
Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 
11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 
manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 
percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 
0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium 
added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 
1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after 
aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is 
generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in 
widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the 
manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. These include stainless 
steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools 
(e.g., carpet knives).4 This steel is similar to ASTM grade 
440F, but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The 
steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, 
sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 
percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 
sold under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6''.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \5\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 1997 through March 
31, 1998.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act, on December 16, 
1998, KTN requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register, and extend the provisional measures to not more than six 
months. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our 
preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) KTN

[[Page 95]]

accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are 
granting the respondent's request and are postponing the final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be 
extended accordingly.

Affiliation

    We have preliminarily determined that KTN is affiliated with 
Thyssen Stahl and Thyssen AG (Thyssen). Section 771(33)(E) provides 
that the Department shall consider companies to be affiliated where one 
company owns, controls, or holds, with the power to vote, five percent 
or more of the outstanding shares of voting stock or shares of any 
other company. Where the Department has determined that a company 
directly or indirectly holds a five percent or more equity interest in 
another company, the Department has deemed these companies to be 
affiliated.
    We have preliminarily determined that KTN is affiliated with 
Thyssen and Thyssen Stahl because Thyssen Stahl indirectly owns and 
controls through KTS forty percent of KTN's outstanding stock and 
Thyssen, which wholly owns Thyssen Stahl, likewise indirectly owns and 
controls forty percent of KTN. We examined the record evidence to 
evaluate the nature of KTN's relationship with Thyssen Stahl and 
Thyssen. KTN's Section A Questionnaire Response dated September 8, 
1998, states that KTN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KTS. KTS formed a 
subsidiary entity KTN in 1997 with the intention that KTN would handle 
the stainless steel production business managed and operated by its 
parent company KTS. The supporting exhibits to this submission confirm 
Thyssen Stahl's interest in KTS and KTS's 100-percent shareholder 
interest in KTN. In its September 8 submission, respondent states that 
KTS is a joint venture owned sixty percent by Fried. Krupp AG Krupp-
Hoesch (Krupp) and forty percent by Thyssen Stahl. In a submission 
dated October 20, 1998, the petitioners placed on the record publicly 
available data that confirmed not only the foregoing shareholding 
interests, but also confirmed that Thyssen Stahl is a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of Thyssen. Consequently, Thyssen, through Thyssen Stahl and 
KTS, indirectly owns a 40 percent interest in KTN. Therefore, KTN, as 
the wholly-owned subsidiary of the joint venture entity KTS, is 
affiliated with the joint venturer Thyssen Stahl and its parent company 
Thyssen pursuant to section 771(33)(E). See Steel Wire Rod From Sweden, 
63 FR 40499, 40453 (July 29, 1998) (Sweden).
    In addition, we have preliminarily determined that KTN is 
affiliated with Thyssen and its U.S. and home market affiliates. 
Section 771(33)(F) provides that the Department shall consider 
companies to be affiliated where two or more companies are under the 
common control of a third company. The statute defines control as being 
in a position to legally or operationally exercise restraint or 
direction over the other entity. Actual exercise of control is not 
required by the statute. In this investigation, the nature and quality 
of corporate contact necessitate a finding of affiliation vis-a-vis the 
common control mechanism.
    Section 771(33)(F) and the Department's determinations in Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Brazil, 62 FR 18486, 18490 (April 
15, 1997) and Sweden at 40452, support a finding that KTN and Thyssen's 
other affiliates are under the common control of Thyssen and, 
therefore, KTN is affiliated with Thyssen's other affiliates in both 
the home and U.S. markets. The record facts show that Thyssen, as the 
majority equity holder and ultimate parent company to its various 
affiliates, is in a position to exercise direction and restraint over 
the Thyssen affiliates' production and pricing. The record evidence 
also shows that Thyssen indirectly holds a substantial equity interest 
in KTN, plays a significant role in KTN's operations and management, 
and therefore is in a position to legally and operationally exercise 
direction and restraint over KTN (see Memorandum to Joseph Spetrini, 
KTN Affiliation, December 16, 1998) (Affiliation Memo). The evidence, 
taken as a whole, indicates that Thyssen has several potential avenues 
for exercising direction and restraint over KTN's production, pricing 
and other business activities. In sum, Thyssen's substantial equity 
ownership in KTN and Thyssen's other affiliates, in conjunction with 
the ``totality of other evidence of control'' requires a finding that 
these companies are under the common control of Thyssen.
    Finally, notwithstanding KTN's November 23 and 25 submissions, we 
note that KTN to date has failed to place rebuttal evidence on the 
record which addresses whether Thyssen's other affiliates are 
affiliated with KTN. The Department on three separate occasions issued 
questionnaires requesting more information from KTN. Despite three 
Department requests for information on affiliation, and KTN's repeated 
assurances that it would provide the Department with its factual and 
legal analysis of this issue, it has yet to comply with these 
statements and to provide the Department with this information. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that pursuant to 
section 776(a) of the Tariff Act that the use of partial facts 
otherwise available is necessary to determine whether KTN is affiliated 
with Thyssen's other affiliates that act as steel service centers in 
the home and U.S. markets (see Affiliation Memo). Accordingly, the 
Department has preliminarily determined that the record evidence 
establishes that KTN is affiliated under section 771(33)(F) with these 
service centers because they are under the common control of Thyssen.

Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776 of the Tariff Act, in these 
preliminary results we have used partial facts available in one 
instance where KTN failed to provide us with certain sales information 
concerning KTN's reseller sales in the U.S. and home market.
    On August 3, 1998, the Department issued to KTN its standard 
antidumping questionnaire. That questionnaire explicitly instructed KTN 
to report affiliates' resales to unaffiliated customers rather than its 
sales to affiliates. We also directed KTN to contact the agency 
official in charge if the sales to affiliated parties represented a 
``relatively small part'' of its total sales, or if KTN was unable to 
collect the necessary information. Our October 9, 1998 section A 
supplemental questionnaire reiterated this instruction (see, question 
1.c) and further instructed KTN to report the sales of subject 
merchandise in the home and U.S. market by the various subsidiaries of 
Thyssen identified in KTN's section A questionnaire response (see 
question 2.d). Finally, on October 27, 1998, Department personnel 
contacted KTN's counsel and once again requested a detailed explanation 
of KTN's reporting methodology concerning its sales to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers. During that conversation we instructed KTN to 
report the downstream sales of certain affiliates and, if unable to do 
so, required KTN to provide the Department with a detailed explanation 
as to why it was unable to report such sales (see Memorandum to the 
File, Affiliated Party Sales, October 28, 1998).
    On October 28, 1998, KTN submitted comments regarding its 
downstream sales. KTN submitted additional information regarding such 
sales on November 4, 1998. KTN indicated in both of its submissions 
that, per the Department's instructions, it intended to

[[Page 96]]

report downstream sales information by certain home market affiliates 
and U.S. affiliated resellers, but for numerous other reasons, it did 
not intend to report its remaining affiliates' reseller sales.
    After a thorough review of the record the Department notified KTN 
that it was still required to report downstream and reseller sales by 
additional home market and U.S. affiliates (see Memorandum to the File, 
Downstream Sales, November 6, 1998). Further, on November 6, 1998, KTN 
wrote the Department requesting an extension of time in which to submit 
a response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire, which 
the Department granted in full.
    A review of KTN's November 16, 1998, section B and C supplemental 
responses indicated that KTN failed to report certain affiliated 
reseller sales information requested by the Department. On November 17, 
1998, we issued a letter to KTN stating that if the information 
requested was not submitted by November 23, 1998, the Department would 
apply adverse facts available to KTN's unreported downstream and 
reseller sales. On November 23, 1998, KTN submitted additional 
affiliated reseller sales information, but failed to provide the 
Department with a majority of the requested downstream and reseller 
sales information. KTN did not submit downstream sales information for 
its home market affiliates in question, and submitted inaccurate 
reseller information for its affiliated U.S. resellers. Specifically, 
for the expenses incurred by certain of its U.S. subsidiaries, KTN 
reported the amount it incurred when selling to certain of its 
resellers instead of the amount of expenses incurred by certain of its 
resellers when selling to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Tariff Act, it is appropriate to make an inference 
adverse to the interests of KTN because it failed to cooperate by not 
fully responding to the Department's request for specific information. 
The Department is authorized, under section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, 
to use an inference that is adverse to the interest of a party if the 
Department finds that the party has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for 
information. We examined whether KTN had acted to the best of its 
ability in responding to our requests for information. Based on the 
details listed above, we have preliminarily determined that KTN had 
sufficient time to prepare the requested information. As mentioned 
above, both our antidumping questionnaire and subsequent supplemental 
questionnaires explicitly directed KTN to report its downstream sales 
in the home market and affiliated reseller's sales in the United 
States. While we did eventually conclude that KTN was not required to 
report certain resales by certain affiliates, from the time of our 
initial questionnaire, it was required to gather all affiliated 
reseller information. As a result, we have calculated the highest 
normal value (NV) reported by control number (CONNUM) in KTN's home 
market database and applied it to KTN's sales to its affiliates for 
which KTN did not report home market downstream sales. For sales by 
KTN's affiliated U.S. resellers for which expenses were incorrectly 
reported, we identified the highest value for each U.S. expense from 
KTN's U.S. database and applied this highest value to all of KTN's 
reseller expenses that were incorrectly reported. See KTN Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum, December 17, 1998, a copy of which is on file in 
room B-099 of the main Commerce building.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of KTN from Germany to the United States 
were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described 
in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs 
and CEPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.
    On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir.). 
In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Tariff Act, the 
Court discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as 
the basis for foreign market value when the Department finds home 
market sales to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' This issue 
was not raised by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA 
amended the definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of 
trade'' to include sales below cost. See Section 771(15) of the Tariff 
Act. Consequently, the Department has reconsidered its practice in 
accordance with this court decision and has determined that it would be 
inappropriate to resort directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market 
sales, as the basis for NV if the Department finds foreign market sales 
of merchandise identical or most similar to that sold in the United 
States to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the 
Department will use sales of similar merchandise, if such sales exist. 
The Department will use CV as the basis for NV only when there are no 
above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, 
in this proceeding, when making comparisons in accordance with section 
771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all products sold in the home 
market as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section of this 
notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in 
the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the 
most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade, 
based on the characteristics listed in Sections B and C of our 
antidumping questionnaire.

Transactions Investigated

    For its home market and U.S. sales, KTN reported the date of 
invoice as the date of sale, in keeping with the Department's stated 
preference for using the invoice date as the date of sale. KTN stated 
that the invoice date best reflects the date on which the material 
terms of sale are established and that price and/or quantity can and do 
change between order date and invoice date. However, petitioners have 
alleged that the sales documentation indicates that the order date 
appears to be the date when the material terms of sale are set for the 
majority of KTN's sales of SSSS. Given the relevance of petitioners 
comments and the nature of marketing these types of made-to-order 
products, petitioners claims have some merit. Consequently, on October 
9, 1998, the Department requested that KTN provide additional 
information concerning the nature and frequency of price and quantity 
changes occurring between the date of order and date of invoice. We 
also asked KTN to report order date for all home market and U.S. sales 
and to ensure that all sales with order or invoice dates within the POI 
are reported. On November 16, 1998, KTN reported the order date for its 
home market sales including sales with order dates within the POI but 
invoices after the POI. With respect to KTN's U.S. sales, on December 
4, 1998, KTN reported order date for sales through its wholly-owned 
U.S. subsidiary, Krupp Hoesch Steel Products (KHSP), but failed to 
report order date for sales through its other affiliated resellers. 
However, in both submissions KTN reiterated that invoice

[[Page 97]]

date is the appropriate date of sale. The Department is preliminarily 
using the invoice date as the date of sale for both home market and 
U.S. sales. We intend to fully examine this issue at verification, and 
we will incorporate our findings, as appropriate, in our analysis for 
the final determination. If we determine that order confirmation is the 
appropriate date of sale, we may resort to facts available for the 
final determination to the extent that this information has not been 
reported.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff 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 CEP 
transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting price sales in the 
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and 
profit. For EP, the US LOT is also the level of the starting price 
sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. 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 LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine 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 a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff 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 differences in the levels between NV 
and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 
773(A)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). (See e.g., 
Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997)).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we asked KTN to 
identify the specific differences and similarities in selling functions 
and/or support services between all phases of marketing in the home 
market and the United States. KTN identified five channels of 
distribution in the home market: (1) direct factory (2) inventory sales 
(3) second quality sales (4) further processed sales, and (5) precision 
strip sales. For all channels, KTN performs similar selling functions 
such as negotiating prices with customers, setting similar credit 
terms, arranging freight to the customer, and conducting market 
research and sales calls. The remaining selling activities did not 
differ significantly by channel of distribution. Because channels of 
distribution do not qualify as separate levels of trade when the 
selling functions performed for each customer class or channel are 
sufficiently similar, we determined that one level of trade exists for 
KTN's home market sales.
    For the U.S. market, KTN reported four channels of distribution: 1) 
back-to-back CEP sales made through KHSP; 2) consignment CEP sales made 
through KHSP; 3) ``second'' quality CEP sales made through KHSP; and 4) 
factory direct EP sales. However, for CEP transactions, the Department 
examines the selling functions at the level of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to the importer (i.e., the sale from Krupp Nirosta 
Export (KTN's home market affiliate) in Germany to KHSP). These selling 
functions included negotiating prices with customers, offering 
technical advice, arranging delivery services, providing after-sale 
warranties, and conducting market research and/or sales calls. We found 
that KTN provided a greater degree of these services on its factory-
direct sales (channel 4) than it did on its CEP sales to KHSP (channels 
1 through 3), and that the selling functions were sufficiently 
different between sales to these customers to support a finding of two 
separate LOTs. Furthermore, we determined that KTN's sales through 
channel 4 were at a different stage of distribution than were its sales 
through KHSP. Therefore, we have determined that two LOTs exist in the 
United States, notwithstanding KTN's claim that it sold through four 
channels. See KTN Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
    When we compared EP sales (i.e., factory-direct sales) to home 
market sales, we determined that both sales were made at the same LOT. 
For both EP and home market transactions, KTN sold directly to the 
customer, and provided similar levels of price negotiations, freight 
arrangements, sales calls, market research, advertising, after-sales 
service warranties, and technical services. For CEP sales, KTN 
performed fewer price negotiations, freight arrangements, sales calls, 
market research, and after-sales service warranties. In addition, the 
differences in selling functions performed for home market and CEP 
transactions indicates that home market sales involved a more advanced 
stage of distribution than CEP sales. See Id.
    Because we compared CEP sales to HM sales at a different level of 
trade, we examined whether a LOT adjustment may be appropriate. In this 
case KTN sold at one LOT in the home market; therefore, there is no 
basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of consistent 
price differences between levels of trade. Further, we do not have the 
information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns of KTN's 
sales of other similar products and there is no other record evidence 
upon which such an analysis could be based.
    Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for 
making a LOT adjustment but the LOT in Germany for KTN is at a more 
advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP sales, a CEP offset is 
appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act, 
as claimed by KTN. We based the CEP offset amount on the amount of home 
market indirect selling expenses, and limited the deduction for HM 
indirect selling expenses to the amount of indirect selling expenses 
deducted from CEP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Tariff 
Act. We applied the CEP offset to NV, whether based on home market 
prices or CV. See KTN Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    KTN reported as EP transactions certain sales of subject 
merchandise sold to unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to importation 
without the involvement of its affiliated company, KHSP. KTN reported 
as CEP transactions its sales of subject merchandise sold to KHSP for 
its own account. KHSP then resold the subject merchandise after 
importation to unaffiliated customers in the United States.
    Also, because KTN was unable to demonstrate that it was not in the 
position to collect downstream sales information from its U.S. 
affiliates, based on record evidence, we requested that KTN report its 
downstream sales made in the United States (see Memorandum To Richard 
Weible, Limited Reporting of Home Market and United States Sales, 
November 13, 1998) (Limited Reporting).
    We calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff 
Act, for those sales where the merchandise was sold to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted, based on the facts of 
record. We based EP on the packed, delivered tax and duty unpaid price 
to

[[Page 98]]

unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
billing adjustments and movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, where appropriate, 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight and foreign inland insurance.
    We calculated CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b) of the 
Tariff Act, for those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that 
took place after importation into the United States. We based CEP on 
the packed, delivered, duty paid or delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for price-billing 
errors, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these 
included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, marine insurance, 
U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, international freight, foreign inland insurance, and U.S. 
warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 
Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (credit costs, warranty expenses and other direct selling 
expenses), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We 
offset credit expenses by the amount of interest revenue on sales. For 
CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act.
    With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the 
United States by KTN prior to sale to unaffiliated customers, we 
deducted the cost of further manufacturing in accordance with section 
772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act. Also, KTN's further manufacturer 
calculated a ratio specific to stainless steel processing, rather than 
a company-wide G&A rate. We recalculated a company-wide G&A rate by 
dividing total G&A expense by total processing costs. See Calculation 
Memo of the Office of Accounting to the File, dated December 1, 1998 
(Calculation Memo).

Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-
length prices (if any) were excluded from our analysis because we 
considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 
351.102. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, 
we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested models of 
subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were on average 
99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we 
determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's 
length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio could 
be calculated for an affiliated customer because identical merchandise 
was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine 
that these sales were made at arm's-length prices and, therefore, 
excluded them from our LTFV analysis. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993) and Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination; Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber 
from Brazil, 63 FR 59509, 59512 (November 4, 1998). Where the exclusion 
of such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison 
product, we made a comparison to the next most similar model.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV 
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was 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 
Tariff Act. As KTN'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 of the subject merchandise, we determined that the 
home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market 
sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of 
trade.

Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    Based on a cost allegation filed by the petitioners, the Department 
found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that KTN's sales of the 
foreign like product were made at prices which represent less than the 
cost of production. See section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. As a 
result, the Department has initiated an investigation to determine 
whether the respondent made home market sales during the POI at prices 
below their respective COPs, within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Tariff Act (see Initiation).
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of the respondents cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the 
Tariff Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP information 
provided except in the following circumstances.
1. Affiliated Purchases
    In accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Tariff Act, a 
transaction directly or indirectly between affiliated persons may be 
disregarded if, in the case of any element of value required to be 
considered, the amount representing that element does not fairly 
reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of merchandise under 
consideration in the market under consideration. If a transaction is 
disregarded under the preceding sentence and no other transactions are 
available for consideration, the determination of the amount shall be 
based on the information available as to what the amount would have 
been if the transaction had occurred between persons who are not 
affiliated.
    Because a COP investigation is being conducted in this case, the 
Department requested in its Section D questionnaire of September 29, 
1998 and in its supplemental questionnaire of November 2, 1998 that KTN 
provide both COP and market prices for each of the inputs obtained from 
affiliates.
    For our preliminary determination in this investigation, we used 
the market prices provided by KTN. However, to the extent that the 
amounts paid to affiliated suppliers did not fairly reflect the amount 
usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in the 
market under consideration, we adjusted the affiliated-party per-unit 
price to the higher of (i) the actual transfer price or (ii) the 
average price paid to unaffiliated suppliers of the same inputs. See 
Calculation Memo at 1 and Attachment 2.
2. General and Administrative Expenses
    In calculating general and administrative (G&A) expenses in its 
response, KTN subtracted several revenue items from its G&A expense. 
Also, KTN subtracted from the denominator used to calculate its G&A 
expense ratio (i.e., total cost of manufacturing) amounts for 
international projects, year-end adjustments and personnel costs.

[[Page 99]]

Because KTN did not provide explanations as to the sources of these 
deductions or supporting documentation, the Department is unable to 
determine whether such items should be included in the G&A rate. 
Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination we disallowed 
its claimed offsets. See Calculation Memo.
3. Financial Expense
    In calculating the net financial expenses in its response, KTN 
included total financial income as a reduction to its financial 
expense. Because KTN did not provide any documentation supporting the 
nature of the income or its long term or short term portions, we 
disallowed its claimed offset. See Calculation Memo.
    Where possible, we used KTN's reported COP amounts, adjusted as 
discussed above, to compute weighted-average COPs during the POI. We 
compared the product-specific weighted-average COP figures to home 
market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 
773(b) of the Tariff Act, in order to determine whether these sales had 
been made at prices below COP. We compared the COP to the home market 
prices, less any applicable movement charges and discounts.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices less than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (i) 
in substantial quantities over an extended period of time, and (ii) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act, where less 
than twenty percent of KTN'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 twenty percent or more of its 
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 within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act. Because we 
used POI average costs, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff 
Act, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
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. In the event that there were no home market sales of 
identical or similar merchandise in the home market available to match 
to U.S. sales, we compared the CEP to CV in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act.
    Our cost test for KTN revealed that less than twenty percent of 
KTN's home market sales of certain products were at prices below KTN's 
COP. Therefore, we retained all such sales in our analysis. For other 
products, more than twenty percent of KTN's sales were at below-cost 
prices. In such cases we disregarded the below-cost sales, while 
retaining the above-cost sales for our analysis. See KTN Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Tariff Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, 
fabrication, SG&A, interest expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. 
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based 
SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by KTN in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. We 
used the CV data KTN supplied in its section D supplemental 
questionnaire response, except for the adjustments that we made for COP 
above.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at 
arm's-length prices. We made adjustments for price billing errors, 
where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign 
inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In 
addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act, as well as for differences 
in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally, we deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act.
    To the extent practicable, we based NV on sales at the same level 
of trade as the EP or CEP transactions. Finally, because KTN's sales to 
its home market affiliates represented more than five percent of its 
total home market sales, for certain of its home market affiliates we 
requested that KTN report its affiliates downstream sales (e.g., sales 
made by the affiliate). See Limited Reporting.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV 
on CV if we were unable to find a home market match of identical or 
similar merchandise. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act. For comparisons to 
EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. Where we compared CV 
to CEP, we deducted from CV the weighted-average home market direct 
selling expenses.

Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances

    On October 30, 1998, petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of SSSS. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c), since 
these allegations were filed earlier than the deadline for the 
Department's preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary 
critical circumstances determination not later than the preliminary 
determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
critical circumstances exist if: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping 
and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or 
elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or 
for whose account, the merchandise was imported 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.
1. History of Dumping or Importer Knowledge of Dumping
    To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with Section 
733(e)(1)(A)(i), the Department considers evidence of an existing 
antidumping order on the subject merchandise from the country in 
question in the United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. We are not 
aware of any antidumping orders on SSSS from Germany.

[[Page 100]]

    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 SSSS at less than fair value, the Department normally 
considers margins of 15 percent or more on CEP sales or 25 percent or 
more on EP sales to provide a basis for imputing knowledge. See, e.g., 
Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination: Honey From the 
People's Republic of China (PRC), 60 FR 29824 (June 6, 1995) (Honey 
from the PRC) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Brake Drums and Rotors From the People's Republic of China, 
62 FR 9160, 9164 (February 28, 1997) .
    Since KTN's margin in our preliminary determination for SSSS is 
equal to or greater than 15 percent, we have imputed knowledge of 
dumping to importers of subject merchandise from this exporter.
2. Importer Knowledge of Material Injury
    Pursuant to the URAA, and in conformance with the WTO Antidumping 
Agreement, the statute now includes a provision requiring the 
Department, when relying upon section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii), to determine 
whether the importer knew or should have known that there would be 
material injury by reason of the less than fair value sales. In this 
respect, the preliminary finding of the International Trade Commission 
(ITC) is instructive, especially because the general public, including 
importers, is deemed to have notice of that finding as published in the 
Federal Register. If, as in this case, 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 would 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 
351.206(i).
    Accordingly, we find that the importers either knew, or should have 
known, that the imports of SSSS were being sold at less than fair value 
and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such 
sales.
3. Massive Imports
    When examining the trade data on volume and value, the Department 
typically compares the export volume for equal periods immediately 
preceding and following the filing of the petition. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(2), unless the imports in the comparison period have 
increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during the base 
period, we will not consider the imports to have been ``massive.'' In 
addition, the regulations allow for the adjustment of the base and 
comparison periods where the availability of the data and the 
commercial realities of the marketplace so dictate.
    We have examined the increase in import volumes from April-June 
1998 as compared to July-September 1998 and have found that imports of 
SSSS in coils from Germany increased by 67.74 percent (see KTN 
Preliminary Analysis Memo). Therefore, we determine that there have 
been massive imports of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from 
Germany over a relatively short period of time.
4. KTN's Results
    Based on the ITC's preliminary determination of material injury, 
the massive increases in imports noted above, and KTN's margins, which 
were greater than 15 percent for CEP sales, the Department 
preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist for KTN.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the 
Tariff Act.

Verification

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

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we are 
directing Customs to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date 90 days prior to 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-
                   Exporter/manufacturer                       average
                                                                margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krupp Thyssen Nirosta GmbH.................................       21.34%
All others.................................................       21.34%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have 
notified the Commission of our determination. If our final 
determination is affirmative, the Commission will determine before the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after our final determination whether imports of stainless 
steel sheet and strip in coils are materially injuring, or threaten 
material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than fifty days 
after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than fifty-five days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. A list 
of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 
774 of the Tariff 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, any hearing will be held 
fifty-seven days after publication of this notice at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230, at a time and location to be determined. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location 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 30 days of the date of 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. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative 
presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief, and may 
make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's 
rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). We intend to issue our final 
determination in this investigation no later than 135 days

[[Page 101]]

after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: December 17, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-34461 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M