[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4861-4862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2051]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS-179]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding U.S. Antidumping 
Duties on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils From Korea

AGENCY:  Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION:  Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  Pursuant to section 127(b)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), the Office of the United States 
Trade Representative (USTR) is providing notice that the government of 
Korea has requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel 
under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) to examine the imposition by the United States of antidumping 
duties on stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) and on stainless steel 
sheet and strip in coils (SSSS) from Korea. Specifically, on March 31, 
1999, the Department of Commerce made a final affirmative antidumping 
determination with respect to imports of SSPC from Korea. 64 FR 15444 
(March 31, 1999). This determination resulted in issuance of an 
antidumping duty order on SSPC from Korea. 64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999). 
Further, on June 8, 1999, the Department of Commerce made a final 
affirmative antidumping determination with respect to imports of SSPC 
from Korea. 64 FR 30664 (June 8, 1999). This determination resulted in 
issuance of an antidumping duty order on SSSS from Korea. 64 FR 30555 
(July 27, 1999). These determinations raised identical methodological 
issues with respect to certain aspects of the calculation of the level 
of dumping by a Korean producer.

DATES:  Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted on or before March 1, 2000, to be assured of timely 
consideration by USTR in preparing its first written submission to the 
panel.

ADDRESSES:  Comments may be submitted to Sandy McKinzy, Litigation 
Assistant, Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, Room 122 Attn: Korea 
Stainless Steel Dispute, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600 
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rhonda K. Schnare, Office of the 
General Counsel (202) 395-3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  By letter dated October 14, 1999, the 
Government of Korea requested the establishment of a panel to examine 
the Department of Commerce's final affirmative determinations of 
dumping resulting in antidumping duty orders on SSPC and SSSS from 
Korea. At its meeting on November 19, 1999, the WTO Dispute Settlement 
Body (DSB) established such a panel. Under normal circumstances, the 
panel, which will hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be 
expected to issue a report detailing its findings and recommendations 
within six to nine months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by the Government of Korea and Legal Basis of 
Complaint

    In its request for the establishment of a panel, the Government of 
Korea has identified as the measures at issue (1) the antidumping duty 
order concerning SSPC from Korea (64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999)) and the 
underlying determination of sales at less than fair value; and (2) the 
antidumping duty order concerning SSPC from Korea (64 FR 30555 (July 
27, 1999)) and the underlying determination of sales at less than fair 
value. The Government of Korea alleges that these measures are 
inconsistent with several provisions of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT 1994'') and the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (``Anti-Dumping Agreement''), 
including the following specific allegations:
     Commerce's decision to treat as a bad debt expense certain 
sales of SSPC and SSSS to a customer who subsequently went bankrupt was 
inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the 
lack of payment did not constitute a ``difference in the conditions and 
terms of sale,'' ``demonstrated to affect price comparability.'' Thus, 
Commerce failed to make a ``fair comparison'' as required by article 
2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     Sales for which payment was not received cannot be 
regarded as sales ``in the ordinary course of trade'' and thus 
Commerce's inclusion of such sales in its calculation was inconsistent 
with Article 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     Commerce's use of the Korean won amount paid for 
merchandise sold to customers in Korea, rather than the U.S. dollar 
amount shown on the invoice, and the subsequent conversion of the won 
amount into U.S. dollars, distorted the basis of the price comparison 
in a manner inconsistent with the ``fair comparison'' requirement under 
Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     Commerce's division of the period of investigation into 
two sub-periods, and calculation of separate weighted-average normal 
values and export prices for each sub-period was inconsistent with the 
requirement of a single weighted-average normal value and export price 
under Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and thus failed to 
result in a ``fair comparison'' as required by Article 2.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement;
     Commerce's division of the period of investigation into 
two sub-periods in the final determination, which it had not done in 
the preliminary determination, resulted in a failure to disclose an 
``essential fact'' as required by Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, and depriving the parties of ``full'' and ``ample 
opportunity'' to defend their interests as required by Articles 6.1 and 
6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     Commerce's division of the period of investigation into 
two sub-periods was done in response to a devaluation in the Korean 
won, whereas Article 2.4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement only permits 
alteration of the calculation methodology in response to an 
appreciation of a foreign currency against the U.S. dollar, and thus 
failed to result in a ``fair comparison'' as

[[Page 4862]]

required by Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     The determinations with respect to SSPC and SSSS are 
inconsistent with past Commerce practice and decisions of U.S. courts 
in various respects, and thus failed to result in a ``fair comparison'' 
as required by Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     The determinations with respect to SSPC and SSSS failed to 
set forth ``in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions on all 
issues of fact and law'' and to provide ``all relevant information on 
the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the 
imposition of final measures'' as required by Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     For the above reasons, the measures are applied pursuant 
to investigations which were not conducted in accordance with the 
provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as required by Article 1 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994;
     For the above reasons, Commerce did not administer the 
antidumping laws in a ``uniform, impartial and reasonable manner,'' as 
required by Article X:3 of GATT 1994.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Comments must be in 
English and provided in fifteen copies to Sandy McKinzy at the address 
provided above. A person requesting that information contained in a 
comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business 
information must certify that such information is business confidential 
and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitting 
person. Confidential business information must be clearly marked 
``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' in a contrasting color ink at the top of each 
page of each copy.
    Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than 
business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be 
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information 
or advice may qualify as such, the submitter--
    (1) Must so designate that information or advice;
    (2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE'' 
in a contrasting color ink at the top of each page of each copy; and
    (3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the 
information or advice.
    Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR 
will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible 
to the public, in the USTR Reading Room: Room 101, Office of the United 
States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20508. 
The public file will include a listing of any comments received by USTR 
from the public with respect to the proceeding; the U.S. submissions to 
the panel in the proceeding; the submissions, or non-confidential 
summaries of submissions, to the panel received from other participants 
in the dispute, as well as the report of the dispute settlement panel 
and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to 
review the public file (Docket WTO/DS 179 (``U.S.-Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 
in Coils from Korea'') may be made by calling Brenda Webb, (202) 395-
6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12 
noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

A. Jane Bradley,
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 00-2051 Filed 1-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-P