[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5594-5599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-485-805]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter 
Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Romania

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

EFFECTIVE DATE:  February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle, Group 
II, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4162, (202) 482-0650, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 
(April 1, 1999).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain small diameter carbon and 
alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from 
Romania is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less 
than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The 
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of 
Liquidation section of this notice.

[[Page 5595]]

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on July 20, 1999, based on a 
petition filed by the Koppel Steel Corporation, Gulf States Tube (a 
division of Vision Metals), Sharon Tube, U.S. Steel Group (a unit of 
USX Corporation), and the United Steelworkers of America (collectively, 
petitioners). See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: 
Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and 
Pressure Pipe From Japan and Mexico; and Certain Small Diameter Carbon 
and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From the Czech 
Republic, Japan, the Republic of South Africa and Romania, 64 FR 40825 
(July 28, 1999). Since the initiation of this investigation, the 
following events have occurred:
    On August 12 and 17, 1999, we issued antidumping questionnaires to 
the Romanian embassy with instructions to identify any additional 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise who had not contacted 
the Department, and to forward the questionnaire to all producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise. On August 31, 1999, we received a 
response from the Romanian embassy.
    On August 16, 1999, the United States International Trade 
Commission (the ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of the products under investigation 
are materially injuring the United States industry. See 64 FR 46953 
(August 27, 1999) (ITC Report Publication No. 3321).
    On September 9, 1999, we received a letter from S.C. Republica S.A. 
(Republica), a producer of the subject merchandise in Romania, stating 
that it did not sell the subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period of investigation (POI) and, therefore, will not file 
a response to the Department's questionnaire.
    On September 13 and October 7, 1999, we received questionnaire 
responses from Sota Communication Company (Sota) and Metal Business 
International S.R.L. (MBI) (collectively, respondents), the trading 
companies exporting the subject merchandise during the POI, and their 
respective producers S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub) and S.C. Petrotub 
S.A.(Petrotub). We issued supplemental questionnaires on September 24 
and October 18, 1999, to which we received responses on October 14, 
November 1, and November 5, 1999.
    On September 15, 1999, we invited interested parties to provide 
comments on the surrogate country selection and publicly available 
information for valuing the factors of production. We received comments 
from the respondents on October 15 and November 17, 1999.
    On October 7, and November 19, 1999, the respondents and their 
respective producers requested that the Department find the seamless 
pipe industry in Romania to be a market-oriented industry (MOI). 
Subsequently, the Department issued a letter to the Romanian embassy on 
October 14, 1999, requesting any additional information relevant to the 
MOI request. On October 22, 1999, we received comments from the 
Romanian Ministry of Industry and Commerce in support of the MOI claim. 
The petitioners submitted comments to the Department on November 2, 
1999, objecting to the MOI claim made by the responding companies and 
the Romanian Ministry of Industry and Commerce.
    Based on a request made by the petitioners on November 10, 1999, we 
postponed the preliminary determination until January 26, 1999. See 
Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: 
Certain Small and Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 
Line and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Romania and Mexico, 64 
FR 66168 (November 24, 1999).
    Between January 6 and January 12, 2000, the petitioners and the 
respondents submitted additional comments regarding the preliminary 
determination.
    Although the deadline for this determination was originally January 
26, 2000, due to the Federal Government shutdown on January 25 and 26, 
2000, resulting from inclement weather, the timeframe for issuing this 
determination has been extended by two days.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on November 5, 1999, the 
respondents requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination. Further to that request, on November 12, 1999, the 
respondents requested that the Department extend by 60 days the 
application of the provisional measures prescribed under paragraphs (1) 
and (2) of section 773(d) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, 
(2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for 
denial exist, we are granting the respondents' request and are 
postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of 
liquidation will be extended accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation includes small diameter seamless 
carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and 
pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-53, ASTM A-106, 
ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the 
American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the 
physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The 
scope of this investigation also includes all products used in 
standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical 
parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically 
included within the scope of this investigation are seamless pipes and 
redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside 
diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot 
finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, 
threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.
    The seamless pipes subject to this investigation are currently 
classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 
7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 
7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 
7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 
7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS).
    Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes 
are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, 
chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in 
industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated 
pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of 
external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-
106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees 
Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be 
used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-
106. Seamless pressure

[[Page 5596]]

pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 
standard.
    Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 
specification and generally are not intended for high temperature 
service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure 
conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and 
gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, 
automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes 
(depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures 
but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally 
low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may 
be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.
    Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and 
natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are 
produced to the API 5L specification.
    Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe 
for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of 
water.
    Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-
106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid 
maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, 
manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by 
meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required 
tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors 
sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a 
single inventory to service all customers.
    The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple- or 
quadruple-certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, 
petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in 
power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in 
some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator 
lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this 
product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial 
applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market 
for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used 
in some boiler applications.
    Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or ``hollow profiles'' of 
carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/
hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold 
under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM 
A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.
    The scope of this investigation includes all seamless pipes meeting 
the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the 
specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or 
not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and 
pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining 
characteristics of the scope of this investigation. Therefore, seamless 
pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the 
ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, 
ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a 
standard, line, or pressure application.
    For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe 
which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be 
used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include 
ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, 
ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, 
line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the 
scope of this investigation.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are 
boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced 
to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-
589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in 
standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished 
and unfinished OCTG are excluded from the scope of this investigation, 
if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same 
country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished 
OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure 
applications.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.

Class or Kind

    From August through November 1999, the Department received 
submissions from importers, respondents, and consumers in the companion 
investigations involving small and large diameter seamless pipe from 
Japan, requesting that the subject merchandise be considered more than 
one class or kind. Specifically, those parties requested that the 
Department subdivide each of these investigations into the following 
separate classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Commodity grade carbon 
seamless standard, line and pressure pipe; (2) alloy seamless pipe; and 
(3) high-strength seamless line pipe. On November 8, 1999, the 
petitioners rebutted these arguments. We have preliminarily determined 
that there is a single class or kind of merchandise for small diameter 
pipe and another distinct single class or kind of merchandise for large 
diameter pipe. For further discussion on this topic see the Notice of 
Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure 
Pipe from Japan and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 
Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and the Republic of South 
Africa, FR 64 69721 (December 14, 1999).

Period of Investigation

    The period of this investigation (POI) comprises each exporter's 
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition 
(i.e., October 1, 1998, through March 31, 1999).

Nonmarket Economy Status

    The Department has treated Romania as a non-market-economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe From Romania, 61 FR 24274 (May 14, 1996)). A 
designation as a NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the 
Department (see section 771(18)(C) of the Act).
    The respondents in this investigation have not requested a 
revocation of Romania's NME status. We have, therefore, preliminarily 
determined to continue to treat Romania as a NME.
    When the Department is investigating imports from a NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on the NME 
producer's factors of production, valued in a comparable market economy 
that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The sources 
of individual factor prices are discussed under the Normal Value 
section, below.

Market-Oriented Industry

    As indicated above, the two Romanian producers and their respective 
trading companies, as well as the Romanian Ministry of Industry and 
Commerce, requested that the Department find the seamless pipe industry 
in Romania to be a MOI.

[[Page 5597]]

    The criteria for determining whether a MOI exists are: (1) There 
must be virtually no government involvement in setting prices or 
amounts to be produced; (2) the industry producing the merchandise 
under review should be characterized by private or collective 
ownership; and (3) market determined prices must be paid for all 
significant inputs, whether material or non-material, and for all but 
an insignificant portion of all inputs accounting for the total value 
of the merchandise. See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review, 61 FR 58514, 
58516 (November 15, 1996) (Lug Nuts). In addition, in order to make an 
affirmative determination that an industry in a NME country is a MOI, 
the Department requires information on virtually the entire industry. A 
MOI claim, and supporting evidence, must cover producers that 
collectively constitute the industry in question; otherwise, the MOI 
claim is dismissed. (See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat from the 
People's Republic of China, Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value, 62 FR 41347, 41353 (August 1, 1997) (Crawfish).)
    We find preliminarily in this investigation that the Romanian 
seamless pipe industry does not meet the Department's criteria for an 
affirmative MOI finding because the respondents have placed information 
on the record showing that all of the known seamless pipe producers 
were primarily owned by the government during virtually the entire POI. 
Specifically, in prior cases, even where we have found some degree of 
private and collective ownership in the industry in question, we 
determined that the second prong of the MOI test was not met because 
the share of total production capacity accounted for by private 
enterprises or collectives was small. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China 63 FR 251, 72261 (December 31, 1998). 
Furthermore, notwithstanding the issue of ownership, we do not have 
sufficient information with respect to approximately 20 percent of the 
seamless pipe industry in Romania and, therefore, are unable to 
determine whether the Romanian government is involved in setting prices 
or amounts to be produced for a significant portion of the industry for 
which we have no information on the record. For a complete discussion 
of the Department's preliminary determination that the seamless pipe 
industry does not constitute a MOI, see the December 15, 1999, 
memorandum, Whether the Seamless Pipe Industry in Romania Should Be 
Treated as a Market-Oriented Industry, which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU) (room B-099 of the main Commerce Building).

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject 
merchandise subject to investigation in a non-market-economy (NME) 
country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. For 
purposes of this ``separate rates'' inquiry, the Department analyzes 
each exporting entity under the test established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 
amplified in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries 
are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can 
demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law 
(de jure) and in fact (de facto).
    Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure 
absence of government control includes the following: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    De facto absence of government control with respect to exports is 
based on the following four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are 
set by or subject to the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has autonomy in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether each exporter 
has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts. (See Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.)
    We have determined, according to the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, that the evidence of record demonstrates 
an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect 
to exports by Sota and MBI. Both Sota and MBI were established as 
privately-owned limited-liability trading companies after Romania began 
its extensive privatization program in 1990; neither company has been 
state-owned nor controlled by provincial or local governments. These 
companies are only limited by their respective articles of 
incorporation and bylaws and are not subject to legislative enactments 
decentralizing the companies' control. Specifically, the information on 
the record shows that these companies are autonomous in selecting their 
management, negotiating and signing contracts, setting their own export 
prices and retaining their own profits. For a complete discussion of 
the Department's preliminary determination that Sota and MBI are 
entitled to separate rates, see the January 28, 2000, memorandum, 
Assignment of Separate Rates for Respondents in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 
Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Romania, which is on file in the 
CRU.

Romania-Wide Rate

    As in all NME cases, the Department implements a policy whereby 
there is a rebuttable presumption that all exporters or producers 
comprise a single exporter under common government control, the ``NME 
entity.'' The Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity, 
unless an exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. 
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that Sota and 
MBI are the only Romanian exporters to the United States of the subject 
merchandise produced by Silcotub and Petrotub. Further, as noted above, 
although Republica produces the subject merchandise, we have confirmed 
with U.S. Customs that no subject merchandise produced by Republica was 
sold to the United States during the POI, either directly by Republica 
or through trading companies in Romania.
    Since all exporters/producers of the subject merchandise sold to 
the United States during the POI responded to the Department's 
questionnaire, and we have no reason to believe that there are other 
non-responding exporters/producers of the subject merchandise during 
the POI, we calculated a Romania-wide rate based on the weighted-
average margins determined for Sota and MBI.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Sota and 
MBI to the United States were made at LTFV, we compared the export 
price (EP) to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Normal Value 
sections of this notice, below. In accordance with

[[Page 5598]]

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI-wide weighted-
average EPs to weighted-average NVs.

Export Price

    We used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act, because Sota and MBI sold the subject merchandise directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP methodology was not otherwise appropriate.
1. Sota
    We calculated EP based on packed C&F prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland 
freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of embarkation, brokerage 
and handling in Romania, and ocean freight. Because certain domestic 
brokerage and handling and inland freight were provided by NME 
companies, we based those charges on surrogate rates from Indonesia and 
Egypt. (See the Normal Value section for further discussion.)
2. MBI
    We calculated EP based on packed FOB Romanian-port prices to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, 
we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for 
inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of embarkation, and 
brokerage and handling in Romania. As with Sota, because certain 
domestic brokerage and handling and inland freight were provided by NME 
companies, we based those charges on surrogate rates from Indonesia and 
Egypt. (See the Normal Value section for further discussion.)

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department 
initially determined that Egypt, the Philippines, Morocco, Algeria, 
Jamaica, and Ecuador are the countries most comparable to Romania in 
terms of overall economic development (see the August 24, 1999, 
memorandum, Certain Small Diameter Pipe (``S-D Pipe'') from Romania: 
Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection). We 
subsequently included Indonesia among the countries which are 
economically comparable to Romania because Indonesia's GNP per-capita 
and overall economic development are also similar to those of the 
above-referenced countries.
    Because of a lack of the necessary factor price information from 
the other potential surrogate countries that are significant producers 
of comparable products to the subject merchandise, we have relied, 
where possible, on information from Indonesia, the source of the most 
complete information from among the potential surrogate countries. 
Accordingly, we have calculated NV by applying Indonesian values to the 
Romanian producers' factors of production for virtually all factors. 
Where we were unable to obtain Indonesian values, we used values for 
inputs from Egypt, which also produces products comparable to the 
subject merchandise. For a complete analysis of the selection of the 
surrogate country, see the January 28, 2000, memorandum, Selection of 
the Surrogate Country in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure 
Pipe from Romania on file in the CRU.
B. Factors of Production
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by the companies in Romania 
which produced seamless pipes for the exporters that sold seamless 
pipes to the United States during the POI. To calculate NV, the 
reported unit factor quantities were multiplied by publicly available 
Indonesian and, where necessary, Egyptian values.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. We added to 
Indonesian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the reported 
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory because this 
distance was shorter than the distance from the nearest seaport to the 
factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 
3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where a producer did not report the distance 
between the material supplier and the factory, we used as facts 
available the longest distance reported, i.e., the distance between the 
Romanian seaport and the producer's location. For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale 
price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's 
International Financial Statistics.
    We valued material inputs and packing material (i.e., where 
applicable, steel billet, lacquer, plastic caps, ink, paint, strap, 
clips, steel scrap, and foil) by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
number, using imports statistics from the UN Commodity Trade Statistics 
for 1998. Where a material input was purchased in a market-economy 
currency from a market-economy supplier, we valued such a material 
input at the actual purchase price in accordance with Sec. 351.408 
(c)(1) of the Department's regulations. For a complete analysis of 
surrogate values, see the January 28, 2000, memorandum, Factors of 
Production Valuation for Preliminary Determination Valuation 
Memorandum), on file in the CRU.
    We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value electricity, we used the 1997 electricity rates, as 
adjusted, for Indonesia reported in the publication Energy Prices and 
Taxes, 2nd quarter 1999. We based the value of natural gas on 1998 
Indonesian prices reported in Energy Prices and Taxes, 2nd quarter 
1999.
    We based our calculation of factory overhead and selling, general 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses on 1997 financial statements of 
three Indonesian producers (i.e., PT Jakarta Kyoei, PT Jaya Pari, and 
PT Krakatau) of products comparable to the subject merchandise. In 
order to calculate a positive amount for profit consistent with Certain 
Fresh Cut Flowers From Ecuador: Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 18878 
(April 16, 1999), we calculated profit based only on PT Krakatau's 
financial statement because the financial statements for PT Jakarta 
Kyoei and PT Jaya Pari indicate that those companies incurred losses. 
Disregarding those financial statements enabled us to derive an 
``element of profit'' as intended by the SAA. See SAA at 839.
    To value truck freight rates, we used a 1999 rate provided by a 
trucking company located in Indonesia. For rail transportation, we 
valued rail rates using information found in a December, 1994 cable 
from the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, as adjusted for inflation.
    For brokerage and handling, because an Indonesian value was 
unavailable, we used a 1999 rate provided by a trucking and shipping 
company located in Alexandria, Egypt. For further details, see 
Valuation Memorandum.

[[Page 5599]]

Verification

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

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise from Romania 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sota Communication Company.................................        13.75
Metal Business International S.R.L.........................        10.99
Romania-wide rate..........................................        12.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Romania-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject 
merchandise except for entries from exporters/producers that are 
identified individually above.

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 by 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 in six copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than March 20, 2000, and 
rebuttal briefs no later than March 27, 2000. 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 March 23, 
2000, 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 not later then 135 days after the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 28, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2577 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P