[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 145 (Thursday, July 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41206-41213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19302]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-560-805]


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From 
Indonesia

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Wojcik-Betancourt or Brian C. 
Smith, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0629 or (202) 482-1766, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute

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

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain cut-to-length carbon-
quality steel plate products (``CTL plate'') from Indonesia are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated 
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping Investigations: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel 
Plate from Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, 
Republic of Korea, and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (64 FR 
12959, March 16, 1999))(``Initiation Notice''), the following events 
have occurred:
    In their petition, the petitioners 1 identified PT 
Gunawan Dianjaya Steel (``Gunawan''), PT Jaya Pari Steel Corporation 
(``Jaya Pari''), and PT Krakatau Steel (``Krakatau'') as possible 
exporters of CTL plate from Indonesia. Though we requested on March 8, 
1999, data on all producers and exporters of the subject merchandise 
during the period of investigation (``POI'') from the U.S. Embassy in 
Jakarta, the U.S. Embassy was unable to provide any additional 
information on producers or exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. Based on information contained in the petition, the 
Department issued antidumping questionnaires to Gunawan, Jaya Pari and 
Krakatau in March 1999.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Gulf States 
Steel, Inc., IPSCO Steel Inc., Tuscaloosa Steel Corporation, the 
United Steelworkers of America, and the U.S. Steel Group (a unit of 
USX Corporation).
    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requested general information 
concerning the company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the sales of 
that merchandise in all markets. Sections B and C of the 
questionnaire requested home market sales listings and U.S. sales 
listings. Section D of the questionnaire requested information 
regarding the cost of production (``COP'') of the foreign like 
product and the constructed value (``CV'') of the merchandise under 
investigation. Section E of the questionnaire requested information 
regarding the cost of further manufacture or assembly performed in 
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 1999, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination in 
this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-815-822). Also, the 
Department received a response to all applicable sections of the 
questionnaire from Gunawan and Jaya Pari.
    On April 7, 1999, Krakatau, a pro se company, notified the 
Department that it did not have the resources available to respond to 
the Department's questionnaire because of the economic hardship caused 
by the Indonesian financial crisis. Krakatau filed its letter within 
the deadline specified for notifying the Department of difficulties 
faced in responding to the questionnaire in accordance with section 
782(c)(1) of the Act and section 351.301(c)(2) of the Department's 
regulations. On April 20, 1999, the Department informed Krakatau that 
it was still required to submit a full questionnaire response. However, 
recognizing Krakatau's claimed difficulties, the Department informed 
Krakatau that it would grant Krakatau an extension of time to respond 
to the questionnaire, if requested, and in accordance with section 
782(c)(2) of the Act, would provide assistance to Krakatau, to the 
extent practicable, in preparing its response.
    On April 26, 1999, Krakatau requested that the Department 
reconsider its April 20, 1999, decision and excuse it from the 
reporting requirement because of its relatively small shipments of the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POI and because the 
Department in

[[Page 41207]]

past cases has excused companies under similar circumstances. On the 
same day, the Department informed Krakatau that although the cover 
letter to the questionnaire mentioned that if the number of exporters 
and producers was large, the Department might find it necessary, due to 
resource constraints, to limit the number of companies subject to the 
investigation, the Department had determined that it now had sufficient 
resources to examine all Indonesian exporters and producers of the 
subject merchandise which were served with a questionnaire in 
accordance with section 351.204(c) of the Department's regulations. 
However, recognizing the fact that Krakatau was experiencing 
difficulties in responding to the questionnaire, the Department again 
provided Krakatau with an opportunity to respond to the questionnaire 
by extending the deadline until May 10, 1999. In response to an April 
28, 1999, letter from Krakatau requesting assistance on compiling its 
home market and U.S. sales, the Department on April 30, 1999, provided 
Krakatau with formatted lotus spreadsheets containing the data fields 
listed in the questionnaire.
    On May 6, 1999, the Department sent Krakatau a letter which 
provided the pro se company with guidelines to follow for submitting 
documents in antidumping duty proceedings. On May 7, 1999, Krakatau 
requested an extension of the deadline for submitting its questionnaire 
response. Due to the statutory time constraints in this case and 
fairness considerations with respect to other companies participating 
in the CTL plate proceedings, we granted Krakatau only a partial 
extension of the deadline until May 14, 1999. On May 13, 1999, we 
received a response from Krakatau which was significantly incomplete in 
that it contained no narrative explanation of the documentation 
submitted or electronic media for its sales, cost and expense data. 
Recognizing its effort to attempt to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, we allowed Krakatau until May 21, 1999, to provide the 
requested information. We also reminded Krakatau of the instructions 
contained in the Department's May 6, 1999, letter, which outlined how 
to properly file questionnaire responses. After receiving Krakatau's 
questionnaire response on May 24, 1999, we informed Krakatau on May 27, 
1999, that the Department was rejecting its response because (1) 
Krakatau missed the extended deadline date within which to submit its 
response; (2) Krakatau did not properly file its response in accordance 
with the Department's instructions; and (3) Krakatau did not fully 
respond to the Department's questionnaire. In an effort to provide 
Krakatau with a final opportunity to provide the requested data for use 
in the preliminary determination given its previous effort to respond 
to the questionnaire, and based on our decision to require the 
Indonesian respondents to respond to additional questions based on our 
determination that the Indonesian economy underwent high inflation 
during the POI,3 we granted Krakatau additional time until 
June 11, 1999, to remedy its deficiencies, which were enumerated in the 
attachment to our letter dated, May 27, 1999. In our May 27, 1999, 
letter, we again furnished Krakatau with filing instructions and also 
provided Krakatau with a section D questionnaire for high-inflation 
economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Based on our analysis of Indonesia's consumer price and 
wholesale price indices, we determined that the Indonesian economy 
was experiencing high inflation during the POI (see 1999 issues of 
the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics). ``High inflation'' is a term used to refer to a high 
rate of increase in price levels. Investigations and reviews 
involving exports from countries with highly inflationary economies 
require special methodologies for comparing prices and calculating 
CV and COP. Generally, a 25 percent inflation rate has been used as 
a general guide for assessing the impact of inflation on AD 
investigations and reviews (see Antidumping Manual, Chapter 8, 
Section XV, updated February 10, 1998; see also Policy Bulletin No. 
94.5, entitled ``Differences in Merchandise Calculations in 
Hyperinflationary Economies,'' dated March 25, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We issued supplemental section A, B, C and D questionnaires to 
Gunawan and Jaya Pari in May 1999, including questions related to high-
inflation economies, and received responses to these questionnaires 
along with revised home market and U.S. sales listings in June 1999.
    In June 1999, in accordance with section 782(c)(2) of the Act, the 
Department provided Krakatau additional assistance, upon the company's 
request, by sending a member of its staff to Jakarta to answer any 
questions Krakatau had with respect to the Department's questionnaire 
requirements. Based on the company's request for an extension of time 
to respond to the supplemental questionnaire subsequent to the 
Department's visit, the Department on June 10, 1999, granted Krakatau a 
final extension until June 25, 1999, to file a complete questionnaire 
response, including monthly production cost data in accordance with its 
high-inflation methodology. We also stated in the June 10, 1999, letter 
that we may be unable to use Krakatau's response, if filed by June 25, 
1999, in the preliminary determination given the proximity of the final 
extended response deadline date to the Department's preliminary 
determination deadline date. While Krakatau's response was received by 
the Department on the deadline date, it continued to contain major 
deficiencies and omissions of data despite the Department's previous 
instructions. For example, Krakatau provided neither calculation 
worksheets for its reported per-unit charges and adjustments, nor 
monthly packing and COP amounts on a control-number-specific basis in 
accordance with the Department's high-inflation methodology. Krakatau 
also provided no historical shipment data for use in the Department's 
critical circumstances determination.
    On July 2, 1999, the petitioner submitted comments dealing with the 
Department's high-inflation methodology for consideration in the 
preliminary determination. On July 7 and 8, 1999, Gunawan and Jaya Pari 
submitted revised cost data. Also on July 8, 1999, the Department 
issued Krakatau a supplemental questionnaire and advised Krakatau that 
it would have to respond fully to the supplemental questionnaire in a 
timely manner before the Department could consider conducting 
verification of its response for use in the final determination.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by the scope of this investigation are certain 
hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (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 nominal or 
actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in 
coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality 
steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual 
thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and 
measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not 
in coils). Steel products to be included in this scope are of 
rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-
rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is 
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have 
been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted 
physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with 
plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this 
scope. Also, specifically

[[Page 41208]]

included in this scope are high strength, low alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA 
steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements 
such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. 
Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products 
in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other 
contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by 
weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or 
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 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of 
niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 
0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical 
description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or 
exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of 
these investigations unless otherwise specifically excluded. The 
following products are specifically excluded from this investigation: 
(1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not 
painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic 
substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and 
above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary 
equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 
500); (5) products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, 
or their proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool 
steels; and (8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 
7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 
7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    As stated in our notice of initiation, we set aside a period for 
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. In particular, we 
sought comments on the specific levels of alloying elements set out in 
the description above, the clarity of grades and specifications 
excluded from the scope, and the physical and chemical description of 
the product coverage.
    On March 29, 1999, Usinor, a respondent in the French antidumping 
and countervailing duty investigations and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 
and Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., respondents in the Korean 
antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (collectively ``the 
Korean respondents''), filed comments regarding the scope of the 
investigations on CTL plate and the Department's model matching 
criteria. On April 14, 1999, the petitioners filed comments regarding 
Usinor's and the Korean respondents' comments regarding model matching. 
In addition, on May 17, 1999, ILVA S.p.A. (``ILVA''), a respondent in 
the Italian antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, 
requested guidance on whether certain products are within the scope of 
these investigations.
    Usinor requested that the Department modify the scope to exclude: 
(1) plate that is cut to non-rectangular shapes or that has a total 
final weight of less than 200 kilograms; and (2) steel that is 4'' or 
thicker and which is certified for use in high-pressure, nuclear or 
other technical applications; and (3) floor plate (i.e., plate with 
``patterns in relief'') made from hot-rolled coil. Further, Usinor 
requested that the Department provide clarification of scope coverage 
with respect to what it argues are over-inclusive HTSUS subheadings 
included in the scope language.
    The Department has not modified the scope of these investigations 
because the current language reflects the product coverage requested by 
the petitioners, and Usinor's products meet the product description. 
With respect to Usinor's clarification request, we do not agree that 
the scope language requires further elucidation with respect to product 
coverage under the HTSUS. As indicated in the scope section of every 
Department antidumping and countervailing duty proceeding, the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only; the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation or review is 
dispositive.
    The Korean respondents requested confirmation whether the maximum 
alloy percentages listed in the scope language are definitive with 
respect to covered HSLA steels.
    At this time, no party has presented any evidence to suggest that 
these maximum alloy percentages are inappropriate. Therefore, we have 
not adjusted the scope language. As in all proceedings, questions as to 
whether or not a specific product is covered by the scope and, hence, 
must be reported, should be timely raised with Department officials.
    ILVA requested guidance on whether certain merchandise produced 
from billets is within the scope of the current CTL plate 
investigations. According to ILVA, the billets are converted into wide 
flats and bar products (a type of long product). ILVA notes that one of 
the long products, when rolled, has a thickness range that falls within 
the scope of these investigations. However, according to ILVA, the 
greatest possible width of these long products would only slightly 
overlap the narrowest category of width covered by the scope of the 
investigations. Finally, ILVA states that these products have different 
production processes and properties than merchandise covered by the 
scope of the investigations and therefore are not covered by the scope 
of the investigations.
    As ILVA itself acknowledges, the particular products in question 
appear to fall within the parameters of the scope and, therefore, we 
are preliminarily treating them as covered merchandise for purposes of 
these investigations.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

Facts Available

    We did not receive a full questionnaire response from Krakatau in 
time to analyze Krakatau's information for the preliminary 
determination. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an 
interested party or any other person--(A) withholds information that 
has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority * * 
* shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination under this title.'' Although 
Krakatau provided the Department with a questionnaire

[[Page 41209]]

response on June 25, 1999, that response contained numerous 
deficiencies and omissions of data which rendered the submission 
unusable for the preliminary determination. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 776(a) of the Act, we have determined that use of facts 
available is appropriate for Krakatau at this time. We have issued 
Krakatau another supplemental questionnaire and, pending receipt of a 
timely and adequate supplemental response, intend to verify all of 
Krakatau's submitted data for use in the final determination.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be 
used in selecting from the facts available if a party has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information. As explained in the ``Case History'' section 
above, Krakatau, a pro se company, had requested the Department's 
assistance in responding to the questionnaire. In response to 
Krakatau's request for assistance, the Department helped Krakatau to 
understand the reporting requirements. The Department's assistance in 
this regard included sending staff to Krakatau's facilities in Jakarta, 
Indonesia to clarify and elaborate on the Department's reporting 
requirements contained in the questionnaire and subsequent Departmental 
letters. Krakatau was provided numerous opportunities and extensions of 
time to fully respond to the Department's questionnaire. However, even 
with the assistance of the Department's staff, Krakatau failed to 
provide a questionnaire response that addressed the most important 
deficiencies identified by the Department in the attachment to its May 
27, 1999, letter. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that 
Krakatau did not act to the best of its ability to provide the 
information requested, despite the extent of assistance it received 
from the Department. Therefore, we have used an adverse inference in 
selecting the facts available to determine Krakatau's preliminary 
margin.
    For the preliminary determination, we assigned Krakatau the simple 
average of the margins in the petition, 35.01 percent, rather than the 
highest margin, 52.42 percent. Although we find that Krakatau did not 
fully cooperate to the best of its ability, Krakatau, on a pro se 
basis, tried to provide the Department in a timely manner with the data 
requested in the antidumping questionnaire. Recognizing Krakatau's 
effort to comply with the Department's information requests, and in 
light of its claimed difficulties, we do not believe it is appropriate 
to assign the highest margin alleged in the petition. (See e.g., Krupp 
Stahl AG v. U.S., 822 F. Supp. 789, 793 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993), which 
referenced a Court of Appeals' opinion sanctioning the Department's 
practice to take into account the level of respondents' cooperation; 
and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Steel Wire Rod from Germany, 63 FR 8953, 8955 (February 23, 1998).)
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' such as the petition, the Department shall, 
to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. 
No.316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994) (hereinafter, the ``SAA'') states 
that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information used has 
probative value. See SAA at 870.
    In this proceeding, we considered the petition as the most 
appropriate information on the record to form the basis for a dumping 
calculation for an uncooperative respondent. In accordance with section 
776(c) of the Act, we sought to corroborate the data contained in the 
petition. We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in 
the petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the 
extent appropriate information was available for this purpose (e.g., 
import statistics and foreign market research reports). See Initiation 
Notice.
    For purposes of the preliminary determination, we attempted to 
corroborate the information in the petition. We reexamined the export 
price, home market price, and CV data provided for the margin 
calculations in the petition in light of information obtained during 
the investigation and, to the extent practicable, found that it has 
probative value (see Memorandum to the File regarding the Facts 
Available Rate and Corroboration of Secondary Information dated July 
19, 1999).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of CTL plate from Indonesia to the 
United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the export 
price (``EP'') to the Normal Value (``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, we calculated 
weighted-average EPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs. Indonesia 
experienced significant inflation during the POI, as measured by the 
Wholesale Price Index, published in the June 1999 issue of 
International Financial Statistics. Accordingly, to avoid distortions 
caused by the effects of significant inflation on prices, we calculated 
EPs and NVs on a monthly average basis, rather than on a POI average 
basis.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Gunawan and Jaya Pari covered by the description 
in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, above, to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market, 
where appropriate, within the same month. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of 
trade and in the same month to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade within the same month. In making the product 
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of 
importance: painting, quality, grade specification, heat treatment, 
nominal thickness, nominal width, patterns in relief, and descaling.

Collapsing

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse 
producers and treat them as a single entity where (1) those producers 
are affiliated, (2) the producers have production facilities for 
producing similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant potential for 
manipulation of price or production. In determining whether a 
significant potential for manipulation exists, the Department will 
consider (1) the level of common ownership, (2) the extent to which 
managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of 
directors of an affiliated firm, and (3) whether the operations of the 
affiliated firms are intertwined (see Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden, 63 FR 
40449, 40452 (July 29, 1999)). Based on a totality of the 
circumstances, the Department will collapse affiliated producers and 
treat them as a single entity where the criteria of 19 CFR 351.401(f) 
are met.
    We find that Gunawan and Jaya Pari satisfy the first criterion in 
that they are affiliated with each other. Under section

[[Page 41210]]

771(33)(F) of the Act, persons are deemed to be affiliated where such 
persons, directly or indirectly, are under the common control of any 
other person. In this instance, the respondents stated in their 
questionnaire response that the Gunawan family controls both Gunawan 
and Jaya Pari (see page 5 of Gunawan's June 11, 1999, supplemental 
questionnaire response). The Gunawan family owns a significant number 
of shares in both Jaya Pari and Gunawan (see page 5 of Gunawan's June 
11, 1999, supplemental questionnaire response). In addition, as more 
fully discussed below, members of the Gunawan family sit on the board 
of directors of both Gunawan and Jaya Pari. These facts indicate that 
the Gunawan family controls both Gunawan and Jaya Pari. Thus, we find 
Gunawan and Jaya Pari to be affiliated.
    Moreover, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(h), we find that Gunawan and 
Jaya Pari are both producers of the subject merchandise. The 
merchandise each produces is identical or similar to merchandise 
produced by the other, and no retooling would be required to 
restructure manufacturing priorities. Accordingly, we find the first 
and second collapsing criteria to have been met in that Gunawan and 
Jaya Pari are affiliated parties, each of which is a producer of 
identical or similar subject merchandise.
    Finally, we also find that the operations of Gunawan and Jaya Pari 
are so intertwined that there exists a significant potential for 
manipulation of price or production if these affiliated producers were 
not collapsed. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). In particular, the level of 
common control is substantial as the Gunawan family holds a significant 
number of shares in both Gunawan and Jaya Pari. Additionally, certain 
executive management positions in Gunawan and Jaya Pari are jointly 
occupied by members of the Gunawan family. For example, Mr. Gwie 
Gunawan of the Gunawan family is the President Director of both Gunawan 
and Jaya Pari. Also, Mr. Gwie Gunawan's son, Mr. Gunadi Gunawan, is a 
director of Jaya Pari and vice-president director of Gunawan (see page 
6 of Gunawan's June 11, 1999, supplemental response). Further, Gunawan 
and Jaya Pari also share information concerning sales, production, and 
pricing (see page 6 of the Gunawan's June 11, 1999, supplemental 
response). All of these facts indicate that there is significant 
potential for price manipulation between these two respondents. 
Therefore, based on the totality of the facts on the record, we have 
collapsed Gunawan and Jaya Pari under 19 CFR 351.401(f), for purposes 
of our margin analysis.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or 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 
LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from 
exporter to 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 level of trade 
than EP or CEP, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    Gunawan and Jaya Pari reported two customer categories (i.e., 
trading companies and original equipment manufacturers) and one channel 
of distribution (i.e., direct sales) for their home market sales. 
Gunawan and Jaya Pari only reported EP sales in the U.S. market. For EP 
sales, Gunawan and Jaya Pari reported one customer category (i.e., 
trading companies) and one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales 
to trading companies). Gunawan and Jaya Pari did not claim that their 
sales to home market customers are at a different LOT than their sales 
to U.S. customers and, therefore, did not claim a LOT adjustment.
    In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the home 
market and U.S. market, we examined whether Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's 
sales involved different marketing stages (or their equivalent) based 
on the channel of distribution, customer categories and selling 
functions. As noted above, Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's sales to their 
unaffiliated customers were made through the same channel of 
distribution, albeit to different categories of customer, with no 
significant differences in selling functions. Based on these factors, 
we find that Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's home market sales comprise a 
single LOT.
    In analyzing Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's selling activities for their 
EP sales, we noted that their sales involved essentially the same 
selling functions associated with the home market LOT described above. 
The selling activities include: (1) sales representative visits to the 
customer; (2) freight and delivery; and (3) pre-delivery inspection. 
Therefore, based upon this information, we have determined that the LOT 
for all EP sales is the same as that in the home market.
    Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and home market sales 
to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act is warranted.

Export Price

    We calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because 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 CNF delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions to the starting price for discounts granted 
through credit notes and rebates, where applicable. We also made 
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, and stevedoring charges at the U.S. port.

Normal Value

    After testing (1) home market viability, and (2) whether home 
market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in 
the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparisons'' 
sections of this notice. We note that we did not conduct an arm's 
length test on affiliated party transactions for the reasons stated in 
the ``Affiliated-Party Transactions'' section below.

[[Page 41211]]

1. Home Market Viability
    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared the 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. 
Because 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, we determined that 
the home market was viable for the respondents.
2. Affiliated-Party Transactions
    We have not used Gunawan's home market sales to Jaya Pari or Jaya 
Pari's home market sales to Gunawan in our analysis because we find 
that Gunawan and Jaya Pari meet the criteria for collapsing affiliated 
companies, and are, therefore, treating them as a single entity for 
purposes of our analysis. See ``Collapsing'' section above for further 
discussion. Gunawan and Jaya Pari reported no other affiliated party 
sales during the POI.
3. Cost of Production Analysis
    Based on data contained in the petition, we found that there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of CTL plate in the 
home market were made at prices below the COP. Accordingly, we 
initiated a country-wide COP investigation to determine whether sales 
were made at prices less than the COP pursuant to section 773(b) of the 
Act (see Initiation Notice at 64 FR 12959, 12963).
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for home 
market SG&A, interest expenses, and packing costs. As noted above, we 
determined that the Indonesian economy experienced significant 
inflation during the POI. Therefore, in order to avoid the distortive 
effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, we computed 
monthly costs based on the weighted average of all monthly costs as 
indexed for inflation over the POI (see Antidumping Manual, Chapter 8, 
Section XV, updated February 10, 1998).
    We used the information from Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's Section D 
questionnaire responses to calculate COP. We used the respondents' 
monthly COP amounts, adjusted as discussed below, and the IMF's 
International Financial Statistics to compute monthly weighted-average 
COPs for the POI. We made the following adjustments to the respondents' 
reported costs:
    1. We revised Jaya Pari's reported per-unit variable and fixed 
overhead amounts to include year-end adjustments which had not been 
included in the reported costs.
    2. We computed the respondents' G&A and interest expense ratios on 
a constant currency basis using monthly inflation indices. We 
recalculated the reported G&A expense ratios to include the expenses 
incurred in January 1998 which had been excluded. In addition, we 
adjusted Gunawan's cost of sales figure to reflect the cost in the 
income statement.
    3. We allocated total foreign exchange gains attributable to 
accounts payable as a percentage of cost of sales.
    4. We calculated the price of slab for those months where there 
were no purchases using the most recent prior month average purchase 
price and indexed that price for inflation.
    5. For months in which there was no production for Jaya Pari, we 
have allocated the conversion costs incurred in these months to the 
remaining months with production.
    6. We calculated consolidated weighted-average COPs and CVs for the 
two companies.

B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    We compared the monthly weighted-average COP figures to the home 
market sales prices of the foreign like product as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales 
had been made at prices below COP. In determining whether to disregard 
home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether 
(1) within an extended period of time, such sales were made in 
substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were made at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market 
prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and 
direct and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POI were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such 
sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales.
    We found that, for certain grades of CTL plate, more than 20 
percent of Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's home market sales within an 
extended period of time were at prices less than COP. Further, the 
prices did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the 
remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV if such 
sales existed, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For 
those U.S. sales of CTL plate for which there were no comparable home 
market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's cost of materials, 
fabrication, SG&A, interest, and U.S. packing costs. We made 
adjustments similar to those described above for COP. In accordance 
with sections 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, 
we used the weighted-average home market selling expenses.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting 
price for early payment discounts, discounts granted through credit 
notes, inland freight, and ``billing error'' rebates. We made 
adjustments for differences in the merchandise in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made

[[Page 41212]]

adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for differences 
in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses, warranties and 
commissions. In this case, respondents incurred commissions only in the 
home market. Therefore, we offset home market commissions by the lesser 
of U.S. indirect selling expenses and home market commissions. 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 Act.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We deducted from CV the 
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the 
weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We offset home 
market commissions in the manner described above in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' section.

Critical Circumstances

    In their February 16, 1999, petition, the petitioners alleged that 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of CTL plate from the 
Indonesia. In a preliminary determination of critical circumstances 
finding published on April 26, 1999, we stated that because there was 
insufficient evidence on the record to make a finding whether 
importers, exporters, or producers knew or should have known, at some 
time prior to the filing of the petition, that a proceeding concerning 
Indonesia was likely, we would make our preliminary critical 
circumstances finding by the date of the preliminary determination (see 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cut-To-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Japan, 64 FR 20251, 20252 (April 
26, 1999)). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), we 
are issuing our preliminary critical circumstances 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.

    We are not aware of any existing antidumping order in any country 
on CTL plate from Indonesia. Therefore, we examined whether there was 
importer knowledge. In determining whether an importer knew or should 
have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at 
less than its fair value and thereby causing material injury, the 
Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for EP 
sales sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping (see Notice of Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake 
Rotors from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 9160 (February 28, 
1997); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan, 64 FR 30574 (June 8, 
1999) (Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan)). All respondents in 
this proceeding have made EP sales to the United States.
    The Department's margin for Gunawan and Jaya Pari exceeds 25 
percent (see ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section below). Therefore, 
we determine that importers knew or should have known that Gunawan and 
Jaya Pari made sales of the subject merchandise at prices below fair 
value. As to the knowledge of injury from such dumped imports, in the 
present case, the ITC preliminarily determined that there is reasonable 
indication that the U.S. CTL plate industry is experiencing present 
material injury. Therefore, we find that the ``importer knowledge of 
dumping and material injury'' criterion is met with respect to CTL 
plate from Indonesia.
    Because we have found that the first statutory criterion is met 
with regard to Gunawan and Jaya Pari, we must consider the second 
statutory criterion: whether imports of the merchandise have been 
massive over a relatively short period. According to 19 CFR 351.206(h), 
we consider the following to determine whether imports have been 
massive over a relatively short period of time: (1) volume and value of 
the imports; (2) seasonal trends (if applicable); and (3) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports.
    When examining volume and value data, the Department typically 
compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and 
following the filing of the petition. Under 19 CFR 351.206(h), 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.'' The Department examines shipment 
information submitted by the respondent or import statistics when 
respondent-specific shipment information is not available.
    To determine whether imports of subject merchandise have been 
massive over a relatively short period, we compared Gunawan's and Jaya 
Pari's export volume for the four months subsequent to the filing of 
the petition (March-June 1999) to that during the four months prior to 
the filing of the petition (November 1998-February 1999). These periods 
were selected based on the Department's practice of using the longest 
period for which information is available from the month that the 
petition was submitted through the date of the preliminary 
determination.
    Based on our analysis, we preliminarily find that the increase in 
imports was not greater than 15 percent with respect to Gunawan and 
Jaya Pari, as these companies reported that they had no exports of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period March-June 
1999 (see July 9, 1999, submission). In addition, U.S. Customs import 
data indicate that Gunawan and Jaya Pari accounted for the vast 
majority of imports of subject merchandise into the United States 
during the POI. Moreover, since the filing of the petition, U.S. 
Customs import data does not evidence massive imports of subject 
merchandise from Indonesia (see July 19, 1999, Memorandum to the File 
Regarding Import Statistics Used for Preliminary Critical Circumstances 
Determination).
    Because the margin we have assigned to Krakatau is 35.01 percent, 
and thus exceeds 25 percent, we have imputed knowledge of dumping to 
Krakatau. However, information on the record sufficiently establishes 
that Krakatau's exports of subject merchandise to the United States 
have not increased massively since the filing of the petition. U.S. 
Customs import data does not show such an increase, and we 
preliminarily do not find massive imports for the two companies 
responsible for the majority of such exports. Thus, we preliminarily 
determine that no critical circumstances exist for Krakatau.
    Because the margin for all other Indonesian exporters/producers of 
the subject merchandise is 32.20 percent, and thus exceeds 25 percent, 
we have imputed knowledge of dumping to ``All Others.'' However, we 
considered that

[[Page 41213]]

the increase in imports was not greater than 15 percent with respect to 
Gunawan and Jaya Pari. We also considered U.S. Customs data on overall 
imports from Indonesia of the products at issue. Based on our review of 
Gunawan's and Jaya Pari's data on massive imports and the U.S. Customs 
import data, we find that imports from all non-investigated exporters 
(i.e., ``all others'') were also not massive during the relevant 
comparison periods. Given these factors, the Department determines that 
there are no critical circumstances with regard to ``all other'' 
imports of CTL Plate from Indonesia (see Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Japan at 64 FR 30585).

Currency Conversion

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

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register.
    We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or 
the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the 
NV exceeds the EP, 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
                                                            percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunawan Dianjaya Steel/PT Jaya Pari Steel Corporation...           32.20
PT Krakatau Steel.......................................           35.01
All Others..............................................           32.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have 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 these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must 
be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no 
later than August 25, 1999, and rebuttal briefs no later than September 
1, 1999. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues 
should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such summary 
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In 
accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing 
will be held on September 9, 1999, time and room to be determined, at 
the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place 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 publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. 
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If 
this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination by no later than 75 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(d) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 19, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-19302 Filed 7-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P