[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8299-8308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4197]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-828]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Brazil

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 19, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen McPhillips (Companhia 
Siderurgica Nacional or ``CSN''), Barbara Chaves or Samantha Denenberg 
(Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais and Companhia Siderurgica Paulista 
or ``USIMINAS/COSIPA''), or Linda Ludwig, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0193, (202) 482-0414, (202) 482-1386, and (202) 482-3833, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute

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

Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that hot-rolled flat-rolled 
carbon-quality steel products (``hot-rolled steel'') from Brazil 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.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 
1998.

Case History

    On October 15, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty

[[Page 8300]]

investigations of imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil, Japan, and 
the Russian Federation. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products from Brazil, Japan, and the Russian Federation (Initiation), 
63 FR 56607, (October 22, 1998). Since the initiation of this 
investigation the following events have occurred:
    On October 22, 1998, the Department requested comments from 
petitioners (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a unit of 
USX Corporation, Ispat Inland Steel, LTV Steel Company, Inc., National 
Steel Corporation, California Steel Industries, Gallatin Steel Company, 
Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel, Inc., IPSCO Steel Inc., Steel 
Dynamics, Weirton Steel Corporation, the Independent Steelworkers 
Union, and the United Steelworkers of America) and respondents 
regarding the criteria to be used for model matching purposes. On 
October 22 and 27, 1998, petitioners and respondents (CSN, USIMINAS, 
COSIPA, Nippon Steel Corporation, NKK Corporation, Kawasaki Steel, 
Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., and Kobe Steel Ltd.), submitted 
comments on our proposed model matching criteria.
    On October 19, 1998, the Department issued Section A of the 
antidumping questionnaire to Companhia Acos Expeciais Itabira 
(``ACESITA''). On October 20, 1998, the Department issued Section A of 
the antidumping questionnaire to CSN, USIMINAS, and COSIPA. These four 
companies are the only known producers of the subject merchandise from 
Brazil. On October 30, 1998, the Department issued Sections B-D of the 
antidumping questionnaire to COSIPA, USIMINAS, and CSN.
    On October 27, 1998, ACESITA submitted a letter stating that it had 
not exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. 
Section 351.204(c)(1) allows the Department to not examine a particular 
exporter or producer if that exporter or producer and the petitioners 
agree. On November 2, 1998, having reviewed ACESITA's submission, 
petitioners agreed that the Department need not examine ACESITA in this 
proceeding. Consequently, ACESITA was not selected as a mandatory 
respondent in this investigation. See Respondent Selection Memorandum, 
(November 3, 1998). Thus, on November 3, 1998, the Department 
terminated the investigation of ACESITA.
    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. Throughout the month of 
November, the Department received numerous filings from respondents and 
other interested parties proposing amendments to the scope of these 
investigations. On January 6 and 27, 1999, petitioners filed letters 
agreeing to amend the scope of these investigations to exclude those 
products for which Itochu International Inc., Nippon Steel Corporation, 
and others had requested exclusion. See Scope Memorandum to Joseph A. 
Spetrini, (February 12, 1999).
    On November 16, 1998, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative 
preliminary finding of threat of material injury in this case. 
Additionally, on November 25, 1998, the ITC published its preliminary 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports of the subject merchandise from Brazil (63 FR 65221).
    On November 16, 1998, the Department received the Section A 
questionnaire responses from CSN, USIMINAS, and COSIPA. Petitioners 
filed comments on CSN's, USIMINAS' and COSIPA's Section A questionnaire 
responses on November 30, 1998 and December 1, 1998. The Department 
issued supplemental questionnaires for Section A to CSN, USIMINAS, and 
COSIPA on December 4, 1998.
    On December 21, 1998, the Department received responses to Sections 
B, C, and D of the questionnaire from CSN, USIMINAS, and COSIPA. On 
December 22, 1998, the Department issued a decision memorandum 
collapsing USIMINAS and COSIPA for purposes of this investigation. See 
the Affiliated Respondents section below. Petitioners filed comments on 
CSN's and USIMINAS/COSIPA's Section B-D questionnaire responses on 
December 28, 1998. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires 
for Sections B, C and D to CSN and USIMINAS/COSIPA on January 4, 1999. 
The Department received responses to the Section A supplemental 
questionnaires on January 19, 1999 and responses to the Section B-D 
supplemental questionnaires on January 25, 1999. Respondents submitted 
additional data on February 2, 1999, February 3, 1999, and February 9, 
1999.
    In their petition filed on September 30, 1998, petitioners alleged 
that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of hot-rolled steel from 
Brazil. While the Department preliminarily found critical circumstances 
to exist in concurrent hot-rolled steel investigations of Japan and the 
Russian Federation (see 63 FR 65750, November 30, 1998), we did not 
issue a determination with respect to Brazil at that time. See the 
Critical Circumstances section below.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a 
rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, 
plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or 
coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils 
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of 
thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm 
and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal 
mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a 
closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm 
and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without 
patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included 
within the scope of these investigations.
    Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully 
stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (``IF'')) steels, 
high strength low alloy (``HSLA'') steels, and the substrate for motor 
lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with 
micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added 
to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized 
as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, 
copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for 
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such 
as silicon and aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, 
regardless of HTSUS definitions, are products in which: (1) iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) 
the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the 
elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively 
indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

[[Page 8301]]

0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are 
outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this 
investigation:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including e.g., ASTM 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506).
     SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              C                       Mn                 P                 S                Si               Cr               Cu               Ni
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10--0.14%..................  0.90% Max.......  0.025% Max......  0.005% Max......  0.30--0.50%....  0.50--0.70%....  0.20--0.40%....  0.20% Max.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063--0.198 inches; 
Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000--88,000 
psi.
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              C                       Mn                 P                 S                Si               Cr               Cu               Ni
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10--0.16%..................  0.70--0.90%.....  0.025% Max......  0.006% Max......  0.30--0.50%....  0.50--0.70%....  0.25% Max......  0.20% Max.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Mo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.21% Max....................   ...............   ...............   ...............   ..............   ..............   ..............   ...............
                                                                                                                                         ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; 
Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi 
Aim.
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              C                       Mn                 P                 S                Si               Cr               Cu               Ni
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10--0.14%..................  1.30--1.80%.....  0.025% Max......  0.005% Max......  0.30--0.50%....  0.50--0.70%....  0.20--0.40%....  0.20% Max.
V(wt.).......................  Cb
0.10 Max.....................  0.08% Max.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; 
Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi 
Aim.
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              C                       Mn                 P                 S                Si               Cr               Cu               Ni
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.15% Max....................  1.40% Max.......  0.025% Max......  0.010% Max......  0.50% Max......  1.00% Max......  0.50% Max......  0.20% Max.
Nb...........................  Ca..............  Al..............
0.005% Min...................  Treated.........  0.01--0.07%.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield 
Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses  0.148 inches 
and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength 
= 80,000 psi minimum.
     Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily 
with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to 
and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by 
either: (i) Tensile strength between 540 N/mm\2\ and 640 N/mm\2\ and an 
elongation percentage  26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm 
and above, or (ii) a tensile strength between 590 N/mm\2\ and 690 N/
mm\2\ and an elongation percentage  25 percent for 
thicknesses of 2mm and above.
     Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in 
coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, 
with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 
0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 
0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium.
    The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00,

[[Page 8302]]

7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 
7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 
7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-
quality steel covered by this investigation, including: vacuum 
degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate 
for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff 
numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents covered by the description in the ``Scope 
of Investigation'' section above and sold in Brazil during the POI are 
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. The Department has 
relied on eleven characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: 
paint, quality, carbon content, strength, thickness, width, coiled or 
non-coiled, whether or not temper rolled, whether or not pickled, edge 
trim, and whether or not with patterns in relief. The Department 
assigned weights to each characteristic. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, the 
Department compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in the antidumping 
questionnaire and reporting instructions. The Department compared prime 
merchandise to prime merchandise, consistent with our practice.

Affiliated Respondents

    Under section 771(33)(E) of the Act, if one party owns, directly or 
indirectly, five percent or more of the other they are affiliated. 
Since USIMINAS owns 49.79% of COSIPA, the Department determined that 
USIMINAS and COSIPA are affiliated. See Collapsing Memorandum to Joseph 
A. Spetrini, (December 22, 1998).
    Furthermore, it is the Department's practice to collapse affiliated 
producers for purposes of calculating a margin when they have 
production facilities for similar or identical products that would not 
require substantial retooling in order to restructure manufacturing 
priorities and the facts demonstrate that there is significant 
potential for manipulation of pricing or production. In accordance with 
Sec. 351.401(f) of the Antidumping Regulations, the Department 
concluded that both companies are fully integrated producers currently 
offering a similar range of products, including hot-rolled products 
that would not require substantial retooling to restructure 
manufacturing priorities. Furthermore, in light of USIMINAS's high 
level of ownership of COSIPA, common directors, and the fact that 
COSIPA is consolidated on USIMINAS's financial statements, there is a 
significant possibility of price or production manipulation between the 
two companies. For these reasons, the Department collapsed USIMINAS and 
COSIPA into one entity for the purpose of this investigation. See Id.
    While it also appears that there may be links between the collapsed 
entity, USIMINAS/COSIPA, and CSN, there is insufficient information on 
the record at this time to consider all three companies to be 
affiliated and to collapse CSN with USIMINAS/COSIPA. Therefore, we 
preliminarily do not find CSN to be affiliated with USIMINAS/COSIPA and 
we preliminarily are not collapsing CSN with USIMINAS/COSIPA.
    The Department notes that affiliation and collapsing are very 
complex and difficult issues. Therefore, the Department invites parties 
to submit information and comment on these issues to ensure that our 
decision is based on a complete and thorough record. The Department 
intends to examine these issues carefully for the final determination 
of this investigation. Any new information that parties wish to provide 
the Department must be submitted no later than March 1, 1999. All 
information or arguments parties provide will be fully analyzed in 
making our final determination.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, the Department determines Normal Value (``NV'') 
based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade 
(``LOT'') as the Export Price (``EP'') or Constructed Export Price 
(``CEP'') transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting price of 
sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on Constructed 
Value (``CV''), that of the sales from which the Department derives 
selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and profit. 
For EP, the 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, the Department examines 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, the Department makes a LOT adjustment in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 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 sales affects price comparability, the Department 
adjusts 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).

CSN

    CSN sells to trading companies in the U.S. market and service 
centers/distributors and end-users in the home market. CSN states that 
it provides warranties, technical assistance, and freight arrangements 
equally to service centers/distributors and end-users. Thus, the 
selling functions provided to different classes of home market 
customers do not vary significantly. CSN provides the same selling 
functions for U.S. sales except for technical assistance. Technical 
assistance is only provided with respect to home market sales. However, 
CSN notes that this assistance is mainly provided in connection with 
warranty claims which are available to all customers. We find that 
technical assistance does not constitute a significant difference 
between the services provided to home market and U.S. customers. 
Consequently, the Department preliminarily determines that there is 
only one LOT in the home market and that it is at the same level as the 
single LOT in the U.S. market.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    In the home market, USIMINAS/COSIPA made sales to end-users,

[[Page 8303]]

affiliated distributors, and unaffiliated distributors. USIMINAS/COSIPA 
claim four channels of distribution with respect to these sales: (1) 
Direct sales to end users; (2) sales through affiliated distributors to 
end-users; (3) sales to unaffiliated distributors; and (4) sales to 
end-users for which an affiliated distributor was contracted to further 
process the merchandise for USIMINAS.
    USIMINAS/COSIPA claim that there is a significant difference 
between prices charged to end-users and prices charged to distributors. 
USIMINAS/COSIPA further claim that prices charged to distributors and 
to end-users differ significantly from prices charged by affiliated 
distributors to their downstream customers.
    In determining whether separate levels of trade actually existed in 
the home market, the Department first examined available information on 
the record about the company's selling functions for each channel of 
distribution. USIMINAS/COSIPA indicated that the selling functions 
performed by the affiliated distributors in the second channel of 
distribution (downstream sales) are much more significant than those 
performed by USIMINAS/COSIPA in any of the other home market channels 
of distribution (mill direct sales). The following are examples of 
selling functions provided for downstream sales but not mill direct 
sales: inventory maintenance, faster delivery times because of higher 
inventory maintenance, more flexible credit terms, special warehousing, 
technical services, and more extensive delivery services. Additionally, 
downstream sales involve much smaller volume purchases than mill direct 
sales. For mill direct sales, USIMINAS/COSIPA provide only limited 
after-sales services/warranties, freight and delivery arrangements and 
technical advice. Thus, we determined that the downstream sales by 
affiliates were made at a different LOT than other HM sales.
    While the USIMINAS/COSIPA mill direct sales to end-users (whether 
or not further processed) and mill direct sales to unaffiliated 
distributors involve different channels of distribution, these sales do 
not involve significant differences in selling functions. As noted 
above, all mill direct sales involve limited after-sales services/
warranties, freight and delivery arrangements and technical advice, and 
there are no significant differences in selling functions. Therefore, 
the Department does not consider these channels to represent different 
levels of trade. Thus, we preliminarily determine that downstream sales 
and mill direct sales represent two different home market LOTs.
    In the U.S. market, USIMINAS/COSIPA claim that all sales were made 
at one level of trade, through one channel of distribution. USIMINAS/
COSIPA state that all U.S. sales were made to unaffiliated trading 
companies. USIMINAS/COSIPA state that these sales are made at the same 
level of trade as USIMINAS/COSIPA's direct home market sales to 
unaffiliated distributors (Home Market Channel 3). However, as noted 
above, the Department finds the selling functions of all home market 
mill direct sales to be quite similar to each other, constituting a 
single LOT. The Department additionally finds the selling functions for 
mill direct sales to be similar to U.S. sales. The only selling 
functions associated with U.S. sales are after-sales service/warranties 
and freight and delivery arrangements. As noted above, these services 
are also provided to home market mill direct customers. The only other 
selling function offered for home market mill direct sales is a limited 
amount of technical advice. Both home market mill direct sales and U.S. 
sales involve sales to large customers, including service centers/
distributors that resell steel. (U.S. sales are only made to 
resellers.) Therefore, based on our analysis of selling functions, the 
Department finds U.S. sales to be at the same LOT as home market mill 
direct sales.
    To the extent possible, we compared sales made in the U.S. to mill 
direct sales in the home market, which are at the same level of trade 
as the U.S. sales. To the extent that we were unable to match U.S. 
sales to identical home market sales at the same LOT, we used facts 
available as the basis of NV because we do not have complete data on 
downstream sales (i.e., sales at the other home market LOT). See the 
Fair Value Comparisons section below.

Date of Sale

    As stated in 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department will use invoice 
date as the date of sale unless another date better reflects the date 
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of 
sale. Both CSN and USIMINAS/COSIPA reported the date of the nota fiscal 
(i.e., the date the product leaves the factory) as the home market date 
of sale, and the date of the commercial invoice (i.e., the invoice 
issued on the date of shipment from the port) as the date of the U.S. 
sale.
    CSN maintains that it uses the date of the nota fiscal for home 
market sales in its accounting records because this is the date on 
which material terms of sale are finalized. Moreover, CSN notes that it 
adds estimated freight and insurance expenses to each invoice, which 
are not confirmed in writing until the date of the nota fiscal. For its 
U.S. sales, CSN reported the date of the commercial invoice, stating 
that it is the date on which the material terms of sale are finalized 
and recorded in its accounting records.
    USIMINAS and COSIPA maintain that for their home market sales, the 
nota fiscal is the date on which the material terms of sale are first 
finalized. The nota fiscal is also used by both companies' accounting 
systems to register home market sales. In response to another inquiry, 
COSIPA noted that it cannot provide order confirmation data since it 
does not keep records of this documentation. For their U.S. sales, 
USIMINAS and COSIPA claim that the actual quantity produced can and 
does change five to 20 percent from the time of order confirmation to 
the nota fiscal or commercial invoice. Therefore, they do not believe 
that order confirmation is the appropriate date of sale. USIMINAS and 
COSIPA both reported the date of the commercial invoice as the date of 
sale. USIMINAS claims it chose to report commercial invoice (instead of 
nota fiscal when the terms are first finalized) because it is the date 
to which all U.S. sales are tied in its accounting system. COSIPA 
claims that it reported commercial invoice because the mill's location 
at a port ensures that the nota fiscal and the commercial invoice leave 
the mill on the same date.
    Petitioners claim that the sales documentation provided by 
respondents indicates that the order confirmation date, not the date of 
the commercial invoice or nota fiscal, appears to be the date when the 
material terms of sale are set for a majority of the respondents' home 
market and U.S. sales of hot-rolled steel. Given the relevance of 
petitioners' comments and the nature of marketing these types of made-
to-order products, the Department determined that petitioners' claims 
have some merit. Consequently, on December 4, 1998, and January 4, 
1999, the Department requested that respondents provide additional 
information concerning the nature and frequency of price and quantity 
changes occurring between order confirmation date and invoice date. The 
Department also asked respondents to report the order date for all home 
market and U.S. sales and to ensure that the entire universe of sales 
with order or invoice dates within the POI were properly reported.
    USIMINAS and COSIPA subsequently reported in their supplemental 
responses U.S. sales based both on commercial invoice (as previously

[[Page 8304]]

reported) and U.S. sales based on order confirmation date (as requested 
by the Department). USIMINAS and COSIPA stated, however, that they were 
unable to provide complete data based on order confirmation dates due 
to the limited time available to them, but that they would supply 
complete data as soon as practicable. COSIPA reported the order 
confirmation dates of the U.S. sales by manually tracing these dates, 
as these records are not maintained on its computer system. Because of 
COSIPA's location at a port, its reported nota fiscal or commercial 
invoice date (the names in this case are interchangeable) also serves 
as an ex-factory date of shipment. This is not the case for USIMINAS. 
For home market sales, USIMINAS reported order confirmation dates 
corresponding to nota fiscal dates in the POI.
    In its supplemental response, CSN reported those home market and 
U.S. order confirmation dates that were accessible from its database. 
However, the data was not complete as CSN states that the order 
confirmation date is not reliably maintained in its database. CSN also 
reported the date of the nota fiscal (i.e., the ex-factory shipment 
date) of its U.S. sales.
    For this preliminary determination, the Department is using the 
dates reported by respondents as the date of sale since there is 
insufficient information on the record at this time to determine which 
date of sale is most appropriate. Thus, for home market sales, the 
Department is using the nota fiscal date as the date of sale, and for 
U.S. sales, the commercial invoice date. However, in most cases, the 
U.S. date of sale reported by respondents is after the date of shipment 
of the product from the factory. Because it is the Department's 
practice to use shipment date as the latest date of sale, the 
Department is using the ex-factory shipment date as the date of sale 
for U.S. sales in those cases in which the commercial invoice date is 
later. While CSN reported its ex-factory shipment dates, USIMINAS did 
not provide specific ex-factory shipment dates. USIMINAS did, however, 
state in its Section A response that commercial invoices are normally 
issued within two weeks after the merchandise leaves the factory.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides, that if an interested party: 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, as provided in section 782(i), the 
Department shall, subject to subsections 782(d), use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Because USIMINAS did not provide specific ex-factory shipment 
dates, the Department resorted to facts available. As facts available, 
the Department is estimating USIMINAS's ex-factory shipment date by 
subtracting 14 days from the reported date of sale. See USIMINAS/COSIPA 
Analysis Memorandum, February 12, 1999.
    The Department intends to fully examine the date of sale issue 
during verification and will incorporate our findings, as appropriate, 
in our analysis for the final determination. If the Department 
determines that the order confirmation date is the most appropriate 
date of sale, we may resort to facts available for the final 
determination to the extent that respondents have failed to report 
order confirmation date or relevant sales. Due to the complexity of 
this issue, the Department invites all interested parties to submit 
comments in accordance with the schedule set forth in this notice.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of hot-rolled steel from Brazil to the 
United States were made at less than fair value, the Department 
compared the EP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice below. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department calculated 
weighted-average EPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.
    However, in the case of USIMINAS/COSIPA, the Department used facts 
available as the basis of NV if there were no identical matches at the 
same LOT. As explained in the ``Transactions Reviewed'' section below, 
the respondent did not provide useable downstream sales data. 
Additionally, the respondent did not provide complete cost data to 
enable us to calculate difference of merchandise adjustments. If there 
were no identical matches at the same LOT (mill direct sales), we were 
thus unable to determine if the best match would be to downstream 
sales. Nor could we calculate a difference in merchandise adjustment 
for comparisons to similar products. Therefore, we matched only 
identical product sales at the same LOT and used facts available for 
all other sales.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. See also, Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 
(1994). As adverse facts available, we used the highest calculated 
margin for U.S. sales that fell within the mainstream of USIMINAS/
COSIPA's transactions. We selected a margin for sales that could be 
considered indicative of USIMINAS/COSIPA's customary selling practices 
and rationally related to the transactions to which the adverse facts 
available are being applied. In selecting the adverse margin, the 
Department sought a margin that is sufficiently adverse to effectuate 
the statutory purpose of adverse facts available, which is to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete information in a 
timely manner. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR 40422, 40428, (July 
29, 1998). See USIMINAS/COSIPA Analysis Memorandum, February 12, 1999.

Transactions Reviewed

CSN
    On November 12, 1998, CSN submitted a letter informing the 
Department that its home market sales to affiliated resellers were 
limited to two service centers/distributors. Furthermore, CSN claimed 
that these sales represented less than five percent of its home market 
sales of hot-rolled steel. Pursuant to section 351.403(d) of the 
Department's regulations, on December 16, 1998, the Department informed 
CSN that based on the information presently on the record, we would not 
require CSN to report the home market sales of its related resellers. 
However, CSN's claims regarding these sales to affiliates will be 
subject to verification. See Downstream Sales Reporting Request letter 
to CSN, (December 15, 1998).
USIMINAS/COSIPA
    On November 25, 1998, USIMINAS/COSIPA submitted a request that they 
not be required to report their home market sales by affiliated 
resellers (``downstream sales''). USIMINAS/COSIPA claimed that these 
sales accounted for a small percentage of their home market sales, that 
the sales were made at a different level of trade from the U.S. sales, 
and that the merchandise was physically different from U.S. sales. 
USIMINAS/COSIPA identified three affiliated resellers. On December 15, 
1998, the Department informed USIMINAS/COSIPA that they must report 
their downstream sales because they exceeded five percent of the total

[[Page 8305]]

quantity of USIMINAS/COSIPA's sales. See Downstream Sales Reporting 
Request letter to USIMINAS/COSIPA, (December 15, 1998).
    While USIMINAS/COSIPA provided some information regarding its 
downstream sales in its January 25, 1999, submission, this information 
was incomplete. In particular, most product characteristics were not 
fully reported. As a result, we were unable to determine whether these 
sales matched to U.S. sales. We have requested respondent to provide 
complete information with respect to its downstream sales, but we will 
not receive this additional information in time for this preliminary 
determination. Therefore, we are not using submitted downstream sales 
data for this preliminary determination. See the Fair Value Comparisons 
section above.

Export Price

    The Department based its calculations on EP, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by 
the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States prior to importation. Furthermore, the Department 
calculated EP based on packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States.
    The Department made company-specific adjustments as follows.

CSN

    The Department made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for inland freight, and brokerage and handling incurred by 
CSN on its U.S. sales, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act. The Department added an amount to the USP for the duty paid on 
imported coke, for which CSN received a duty drawback upon exportation 
of the merchandise. U.S. foreign inland freight was not reported for 
certain sales. As adverse facts available for these sales, we used the 
highest reported inland freight on any U.S. sale. No other adjustments 
were claimed or allowed.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    The Department made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for the following movement expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight, international 
freight, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses. No other 
adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, the Department 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), the Department compared each of the respondents' 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 each of the respondents' 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, the Department determined that the home market was viable 
for all respondents. Therefore, the Department has based NV on home 
market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade.

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 the 
Department 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, the Department compared, on a model-specific basis, the 
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 unaffiliated 
parties, the Department 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 constructed for an affiliated customer because 
identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, the 
Department was unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's 
length prices and, therefore, excluded them from our LTFV analysis. See 
Notice of 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). Where the exclusion of such sales eliminated all 
sales of the most appropriate comparison product, the Department made a 
comparison to the next most similar product.

Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    Based on the cost allegation submitted by petitioners in the 
original petition, the Department found reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that respondents had made sales in the home market at prices 
below the cost of producing the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated an 
investigation to determine whether respondents made home market sales 
during the POI at prices below their respective COPs within the meaning 
of section 773(b) of the Act. See Initiation Notice, 63 FR 56607, 
(October 22, 1998).
    The Department conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, the Department 
calculated COP for hot-rolled steel based on the sum of the cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market SG&A, interest expenses, and packing costs. The 
Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent in its 
cost questionnaire response, except, as discussed below, in specific 
instances where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified 
or valued.

CSN

    The Department relied on CSN's COP and CV data submitted on January 
25, 1999, except in the following instances: (1) we revised the general 
and administrative expense rate to include amortization of goodwill; 
(2) we recalculated CSN's financial expense rate to correct a 
mathematical error in its computation; and (3) we adjusted CSN's total 
cost of manufacture by a factor which restates electricity purchases 
from an affiliated party to the supplier's cost of production rather 
than the transfer price. See Cost Calculation Memorandum, February 12, 
1999. Additionally, CSN failed to report costs for certain products. 
See the Price-to-Price Comparisons section below.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    The Department relied on USIMINAS/COSIPA's COP and CV data 
submitted on February 2 and 3, 1999 except in the following instances: 
(1) we revised financial expense based on the consolidated expense of 
the companies; and (2) we revised their submitted

[[Page 8306]]

SG&A expenses to include severance payments and profit sharing and to 
exclude net miscellaneous sales, dividend income and gains on 
investments, as well as several other smaller items. See Cost 
Calculation Memorandum, February 12, 1999. Because USIMINAS/COSIPA 
submitted multiple costs for many product control numbers (``CONNUMs'') 
and did not provide separate production quantities, we were unable to 
weight average the multiple costs. Therefore, as facts available, we 
used the highest of the reported COPs or CVs for each CONNUM. See 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Extruded 
Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 63 FR 60295, 60297, (November 9, 1998). 
See Cost Calculation Memorandum, February 12, 1999. Additionally, 
USIMINAS/COSIPA failed to report costs for certain products. See the 
Price-to-Price Comparisons section below.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    The Department compared the weighted-average COP for each 
respondent, adjusted where appropriate (see above), to home market 
sales prices 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, the Department 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, the Department compared the COP to home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, taxes, billing 
adjustment, and discounts and rebates.

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, the Department 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, the Department determined such sales to have been 
made in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with 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 the Department compared 
prices to weighted-average COPs for the POI , the Department 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, the Department 
disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product 
were at prices below the COP, the Department disregarded all sales of 
that product.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    The Department performed price-to-price comparisons where there 
were sales of comparable merchandise in the home market that did not 
fail the cost test. The Department made adjustments, where appropriate, 
for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. (As noted above, we only compared identical 
sales for USIMINAS/COSIPA. Thus, adjustments for physical differences 
in merchandise were not made.) In accordance with Section 773(a)(6), 
the Department deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs.

Brazilian Taxes

    Consistent with past practice, the Department adjusted NV for the 
full amount of IPI and ICMS taxes collected on the subject merchandise 
because these are VAT taxes that have a basis for deduction according 
to Section 773 (a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. The Department did not deduct 
the Brazilian PIS and COFINS taxes as suggested by respondents in 
calculating NV. Since these taxes are levied on total revenues, the 
taxes are not imposed directly on the product or its components. 
Accordingly, there is no basis to deduct them in the calculation of NV 
under Section 773 (a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. See Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Brazil, 63 FR 12744, 12746 (March 16, 1998).
    In addition, respondents argue that the IPI and ICMS tax credits 
received on inputs used to manufacture export products should be 
deducted from the home market NV. The Department disagrees. Since these 
tax credits partially offset respondents' liability for taxes collected 
on sales, such a deduction would double count for taxes for which we 
have already made an adjustment. Therefore, the Department did not make 
a further tax deduction in determining NV.

CSN

    CSN did not provide COP data for all home market CONNUMs. Section 
776(a)(2) of the Act provides, that if an interested party: (A) 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, as provided in section 782(i), the 
Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d), use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. See also, Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) 
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 
(1994). In the instant case, because CSN failed to provide COP data for 
all home market CONNUMS, the Department applied adverse facts available 
in determining the margin for all U.S. sales matching to home market 
sales for which COP data was not provided. We also applied adverse 
facts available in determining the margin for all U.S. sales matches 
for which information to calculate difference in merchandise 
adjustments was not provided. As adverse facts available, we used the 
highest margin calculated for any individual product (i.e., CONNUM). 
The highest margin was based on sales that fell within the mainstream 
of CSN's transactions. We considered these sales indicative of CSN's 
customary selling practices and rationally related to the transaction 
to which the adverse facts available are being applied. In selecting 
the adverse margin, the Department sought a margin that is sufficiently 
adverse to effectuate the statutory purpose of adverse facts available, 
which is to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete 
information in a timely manner.
    For CSN, the Department based NV on prices of home market sales 
that passed the cost test. The Department made deductions for foreign 
inland freight and taxes. The Department notes that the deduction for 
inland freight should be net of VAT taxes. While we have requested this 
information, we did not receive it in time for this preliminary 
determination. Consequently, as facts available, the Department has 
estimated an amount for VAT taxes paid on inland freight, and deducted 
this from the reported amounts. In addition, the Department made 
circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments for differences in credit, 
warranty expenses, and bank charges, where appropriate. On a few sales 
CSN incurred a bank fee that was charged upon the customer's payment.

[[Page 8307]]

CSN adjusted its accounts receivable accordingly, and the Department 
included this adjustment in its calculations. For U.S. sales by CSN, 
the Department recalculated credit to take into account the difference 
between ex-factory and ex-port date of shipment. See CSN Analysis 
Memorandum, February 12, 1999. For home market sales, the Department 
recalculated home market credit and used a price net of VAT taxes for 
the basis of the recalculation. See Final Determination of Antidumping 
Administrative Review: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Brazil, 62 FR 18486 , 18487 (April 15, 1997). The Department 
recalculated both home market and U.S. credit expenses for those sales 
with missing payment dates. As facts available, the Department used the 
date of the respondent's supplemental submission of January 25, 1999, 
as the date of payment for sales missing payment dates. Because it is 
CSN's standard practice to charge late payment fees, we imputed home 
market interest revenue for sales with unreported payment dates. Where 
appropriate, we adjusted the home market starting price for billing 
adjustments. The Department also made adjustments for home market 
inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses to offset the 
U.S. commissions.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    On February 9, 1999, the respondent indicated that there were 
clerical errors in one of its sales databases previously submitted to 
the Department and submitted replacement data. Because these errors 
were clerical in nature and did not change the universe of sales 
reported, we used the revised data for this preliminary determination.
    For USIMINAS/COSIPA, the Department based NV on prices of home 
market sales that passed the cost test. The Department made deductions 
for billing adjustments and discounts. The Department made deductions, 
where appropriate, for inland freight, inland insurance and 
warehousing. See USIMINAS/COSIPA Analysis Memorandum, February 12, 
1999. The Department notes that the deduction for inland freight should 
be net of VAT taxes. However, while we have requested this information, 
we did not receive it in time for this preliminary determination. 
Consequently, as facts available, the Department has estimated an 
amount for VAT taxes paid on inland freight, and deducted this from the 
reported amounts. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expense 
and warranties. Since USIMINAS/COSIPA did not properly calculate home 
market interest, the Department recalculated home market credit using a 
published Brazilian prime rate. See USIMINAS/COSIPA Analysis 
Memorandum, February 12, 1999. For U.S. sales by USIMINAS/COSIPA, the 
Department recalculated credit to take into account the difference 
between ex-factory and ex-port date of shipment. As facts available, 
the Department used the date of the respondents' supplemental 
submission of January 25, 1999, as the date of payment for sales 
missing payment dates. See USIMINAS/COSIPA Analysis Memorandum, 
February 12, 1999. For home market sales, the Department recalculated 
home market credit and used a price net of VAT taxes for the basis of 
the recalculation. See Final Determination of Antidumping 
Administrative Review: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Brazil, 62 FR 18486 , 18487 (April 15, 1997). Because it is the 
standard practice for the respondents to charge late payment fees, the 
Department imputed interest revenue for sales with unreported payment 
dates.
    USIMINAS/COSIPA did not provide COP data for all home market 
CONNUMs. In the instant case, the Department determined that USIMINAS/
COSIPA's failure to provide COP data for all home market CONNUMS 
satisfies the requirements of section 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the 
Act. Therefore, for all U.S. sales matching to home market sales for 
which COP data was not provided, the Department applied adverse facts 
available equal to the highest calculated margin. The highest margin 
was based on sales that fell within the mainstream of USIMINAS/COSIPA's 
transactions. We considered these sales indicative of their customary 
selling practices and rationally related to the transaction to which 
the adverse facts available are being applied. In selecting the adverse 
margin, the Department sought a margin that is sufficiently adverse to 
effectuate the statutory purpose of adverse facts available, which is 
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete 
information in a timely manner.

Currency Conversion

    The Department 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 Act.

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 hot-rolled steel from Brazil. In accordance with 
19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), since this allegation was filed at least 20 
days prior to the preliminary determination, the Department must issue 
its preliminary critical circumstances determination no later than the 
preliminary determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that if a petitioner alleges 
critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that:
    (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason 
of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject 
merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the 
merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and 
that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, 
and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over 
a relatively short period.
1. History of Dumping or Importer Knowledge of Dumping
    To determine whether there is a history of dumping of the subject 
merchandise, the Department normally considers evidence of an existing 
antidumping duty order in the United States or elsewhere to be 
sufficient. The Department found that there is an antidumping duty 
order on hot-rolled steel from Brazil in Mexico, and therefore 
determined that there is a history of dumping and material injury by 
reason of dumped imports of the subject merchandise.
2. Massive Imports
    Since the first prong of the critical circumstances test has been 
met, the Department must examine whether there have been massive 
imports over a relatively short period of time. To determine whether 
imports were massive over a relatively short time period, the 
Department typically compares the import volume of the subject 
merchandise for the three months immediately preceding and following 
the filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 351.206(i). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(2), the Department will consider an increase of 15 percent 
or more in the imports of the subject merchandise over the relevant 
period to be massive. According to official U.S. Customs Bureau 
statistics for the first two months of the comparison period (October 
and November) and according to preliminary Customs Bureau statistics

[[Page 8308]]

for the third month (December), there was less than a 15 percent 
increase in imports from the level of the preceding three months. 
Therefore, there have not been massive imports over the examined 
period, and the Department preliminarily does not find that critical 
circumstances exist for CSN or USIMINAS/COSIPA. See CSN and USIMINAS/
COSIPA Analysis Memorandums, February 12, 1999. The Department notes 
that it has requested company specific shipment information from CSN, 
USIMINAS, and COSIPA but that we have not received it in time for this 
preliminary determination. We invite interested parties to comment on 
the issue of critical circumstances, and we will consider these 
comments and the company specific data in making our final 
determination.

Verification

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

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, the Department is 
directing the U.S. 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. The Department will instruct the U.S. 
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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSN........................................................        50.66
USIMINAS/COSIPA............................................        71.02
All Others.................................................        58.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department has 
notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after 
the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final 
determination whether imports of hot-rolled steel 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 Act, the Department 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). If this investigation proceeds 
normally, we will make our final determination no later than April 28, 
1999.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 12, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-4197 Filed 2-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P