[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6984-6992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3260]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-841]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams 
From South Korea

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Blozy (Kangwon Industries, Ltd. 
(``Kangwon'')), Brandon Farlander (Inchon Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 
(``Inchon'')), or Rick Johnson, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0165 (Blozy), (202) 482-0182 (Farlander), or (202) 482-3818 (Johnson).

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 to the Department's regulations are 
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that structural steel beams 
(``structural beams'') from South Korea 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

    On August 3, 1999, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
investigations of imports of structural beams from Germany, Japan, 
South Korea, and Spain. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Structural Steel Beams From Germany, Japan, South 
Korea, and Spain, 64 FR 42084 (August 3, 1999) (``Notice of 
Initiation''). Since the initiation of this investigation the following 
events have occurred.
    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. On August 17, 1999, 
Northwestern Steel & Wire Company, Nucor-Yamato Steel Company, and TXI-
Chaparral Steel Inc. (``petitioners'') submitted comments to the 
Department requesting that the scope exclude certain forklift truck 
mast-section non-standard I-beams. In August 1999, the Department also 
requested comments from petitioners and potential respondents in these 
investigations regarding the model matching criteria. We received 
comments from petitioners regarding model matching criteria.
    On August 23, 1999, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') informed the Department of its affirmative 
preliminary injury determination on imports of subject merchandise from 
Japan and South Korea and its negative injury determination on imports 
of the subject merchandise from Germany and Spain. On August 31, 1999, 
noting the ITC's negative injury determination concerning Germany, 
petitioners submitted a letter stating that a scope exclusion of 
forklift truck mast-section non-standard I-beams was no longer 
necessary as those products were imported from Germany.
    On August 2, 1999, the Department issued Section A of its 
antidumping questionnaire to Inchon and Kangwon. On August 30, 1999, 
Inchon and Kangwon submitted responses to Section A of the 
questionnaire. Also, on August 30, 1999, we issued Sections B, C, D, 
and E of the antidumping questionnaire. On September 17, 1999, we 
issued a supplemental questionnaire on Section A. On October 25, 1999, 
Inchon and Kangwon submitted their Sections B, C, and D responses, and 
supplemental questionnaire response for Section A. On November 16, 
1999, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Inchon and 
Kangwon, and on December 10, 1999, we received responses from both 
companies. On January 7 and 10, 2000, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires for Inchon and Kangwon, respectively. On January 18 and 
20, 2000, we received Inchon's and Kangwon's supplemental responses, 
respectively. Petitioners submitted comments on Inchon's and Kangwon's 
questionnaire responses in September, November, and December 1999.
    On September 17 and 21, 1999, Inchon and Kangwon, respectively, 
requested that they be excused from reporting home market resales of 
subject merchandise produced by unaffiliated manufacturers. 
Additionally, on September 17, 1999, Inchon requested that it be 
excused from reporting home market sales of I-beams and GI-beams. On 
September 28, 1999, we granted Inchon's and Kangwon's request that they 
not be required to report home market resales of subject merchandise 
produced by unaffiliated manufacturers; however, we instructed Inchon 
to report its home market sales of I-beams and GI-beams.
    On November 2, 1999, petitioners submitted a timely request for a 
postponement of the preliminary determination pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.205(e). On November 16, 1999, we postponed the preliminary 
determination until no later than February 2, 2000. See Structural 
Steel Beams From South Korea and Japan; Notice of Postponement of 
Preliminary Determinations in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 64 FR 
66169 (November 24, 1999).

Postponement of Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on January 13, 2000, 
Inchon and Kangwon requested that, in the event of an affirmative 
preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department 
postpone its final determination until not later than 135 days after 
the date of the publication of an affirmative preliminary determination 
in the Federal Register. Inchon and Kangwon also requested a two-month 
extension of the four-month limit on the imposition of provisional 
measures. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our 
preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) Inchon and Kangwon 
account for all known exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no 
compelling reason for a denial exists, 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

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, 
formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm 
(3.2 inches or more), whether of

[[Page 6985]]

carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not 
drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These products 
(``Structural Steel Beams'') include, but are not limited to, wide-
flange beams (``W'' shapes), bearing piles (``HP'' shapes), standard 
beams (``S'' or ``I'' shapes), and M-shapes.
    All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions 
provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
     Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear 
foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 
inches.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 
7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 
7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 1998 through June 
30, 1999.

Affiliation

    On January 7, 2000, news reports indicated that Inchon shareholders 
approved a plan to merge with Kangwon. Under the proposed plan, Inchon 
will absorb Kangwon. Both respondents have stated that Inchon and 
Kangwon were separate, independent companies during the POI and that no 
merger discussions took place during the POI. See, e.g., Kangwon's 
January 20, 2000 Supplemental Questionnaire Response at pages 20-21 and 
Inchon's January 18, 2000 Supplemental Questionnaire Response at page 
13. Therefore, based on respondents' record statements that they were 
separate, independent companies during the POI, we preliminarily 
determine that the companies were unaffiliated during the POI and have 
treated each as a separate entity for purposes of this investigation.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of structural beams from Korea to the 
United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to the normal 
value (``NV''), as described in the ``export price and constructed 
export price'' and ``normal value'' sections of this notice, below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated 
weighted-average EPs and CEPs (if applicable) for comparison to 
weighted-average NVs.

Transactions Investigated

A. 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 respondent's volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Since 
both Inchon's and Kangwon's aggregate volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home markets for both companies were viable. Therefore, we have 
based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in 
the ordinary course of trade.

B. Date of Sale

Inchon
    For both home market and U.S. transactions, Inchon reported the 
invoice date as the date of sale, i.e., the date when price, quantity, 
and material specifications are finalized, because Inchon stated that 
the price, quantity, and material specifications may change until the 
time of invoicing and shipment. Based on Inchon's reported frequency of 
changes in the material terms of sale for both its home market and U.S. 
transactions, which is business proprietary information, the Department 
preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the most appropriate 
date to use for the date of sale. This is because the frequency of 
changes in price and quantity between order confirmation and invoice 
date indicate that the essential terms of sale are not fixed until the 
invoice date. For a further discussion, see Analysis for the 
Preliminary Determination in the Investigation of Structural Steel 
Beams from South Korea--Inchon Iron & Steel Company (``Preliminary 
Analysis Memo: Inchon''), February 2, 2000. We note that for U.S. sales 
categorized as either EP or CEP transactions, it is the Department's 
practice to use the date of the invoice to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. However, the date of sale cannot occur 
after the date of shipment. Therefore, when date of shipment to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States precedes the date of 
the invoice, we will use shipment date as the date of sale (see Certain 
Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 
12927, 12935 (March 16, 1999), citing Certain Cold-Rolled and 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 13170, 13172-
73 (March 18, 1998). Thus, for U.S. sales through: (1) Channel one 
(Inchon to its affiliated trading company in South Korea, Hyundai 
Corporation to Hyundai U.S.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai 
Corporation located in the United States and an affiliate of Inchon, to 
the U.S. unaffiliated customer), we used Hyundai U.S.A.'s invoice date; 
(2) channel two (Inchon to Hyundai Corporation to the U.S. unaffiliated 
customer), we used Hyundai Corporation's invoice date; and (3) channel 
three (Inchon to the U.S. unaffiliated customer), we used Inchon's 
invoice date, unless shipment occurs prior to issuing the invoice. When 
shipment occurs prior to issuing the invoice, we used the shipment date 
as the date of sale, as noted above.
Kangwon
    For its direct home market transactions as well as its home market 
transactions through Sampyo Corporation, Kangwon's affiliated 
distributor, Kangwon has reported the date of shipping invoice as the 
date of sale, i.e., the date when price and quantity are finalized. In 
its Supplemental Section A Questionnaire Response, Kangwon provided an 
estimate that for a certain percentage of sales, the material terms of 
sale (i.e., price and quantity) change between the date of the 
customer's purchase inquiry and the date of shipment. Additionally, 
Kangwon noted that shipping invoice date is recorded as the date of 
sale in Kangwon's and Sampyo Corporation's accounting records. See also 
Analysis for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Structural Steel Beams from South Korea--Kangwon 
Industries, Ltd. (``Analysis Memorandum: Kangwon''), February 2, 2000. 
Based on Kangwon's record statements, which are subject to 
verification, we preliminarily determine that shipping invoice date is 
the

[[Page 6986]]

appropriate date of sale for home market sales.
    With respect to the date of sale for Kangwon's U.S. transactions, 
in its original Section A Questionnaire Response, Kangwon stated that 
because the final terms of sale remain subject to change until time of 
shipment and because it does not record the date when a commercial 
invoice is issued in its sales records, it reported bill of lading date 
as the date of sale for all of its U.S. sales. However, in its 
Supplemental Section A Questionnaire Response, Kangwon clarified that 
the date of the tax invoice is the appropriate date of sale for U.S. 
channel three sales transactions. Moreover, in its Section C 
Questionnaire Response, despite its claims that it did not record date 
of commercial invoice in its sales records, Kangwon reported date of 
commercial invoice for its U.S. channel one and two sales transactions. 
Based on business proprietary information provided by Kangwon regarding 
the frequency of changes in material terms of sale up to the invoice 
date, which is subject to verification, we find that the material terms 
of sale are subject to change until invoice date and preliminarily 
determine that the appropriate date of sales are: commercial invoice 
date (U.S. sales channels one and two) and tax invoice date (U.S. sales 
channel three). See also Analysis Memorandum: Kangwon. Additionally, in 
keeping with the Department's practice (see above), where date of 
shipment to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
precedes the date of the invoice, we have used shipment date as the 
date of sale.

C. Home Market Sales of ASTM Grade Steel

    Both respondents made a certain percentage of home market sales of 
structural beams manufactured to U.S. ASTM grade specifications during 
the POI. Petitioners allege that ASTM grade home market sales are 
outside the ordinary course of trade and should be excluded from the 
Department's analysis. See petitioners' December 21, 1999 submissions 
for Inchon and Kangwon. Petitioners maintain that in its analysis of 
whether sales are outside of the ordinary course of trade, the 
Department has weighed a variety of factors, including: the 
significance of the quantities sold, the existence of a ready market, 
the comparative volume of sales and number of buyers of the product 
types in question, and whether the merchandise in question was 
primarily destined for domestic or foreign markets, citing Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 FR 64753 (December 12, 
1991) and Titanium Sponge From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Tentative Determination To Revoke in Part, 54 
FR 13403, 13404 (April 3, 1998). Petitioners note that in Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (``Indian Pipe and Tube''), 
57 FR 54360, 54362 (November 18, 1992), the Department examined such 
factors as identified above and found that the Indian respondent's home 
market ASTM grade pipe sales were outside of the ordinary course of 
trade. Petitioners assert that a similar fact pattern exists for 
Inchon's and Kangwon's home market sales of ASTM grade merchandise and, 
consequently, argue that the Department should exclude respondents' 
home market sales of ASTM-grade subject merchandise. In response to 
petitioners' arguments, Kangwon and Inchon have argued that their sales 
of ASTM grade merchandise are within the ordinary course of trade 
because of the considerable number of buyers, the specific requests for 
ASTM grade merchandise, and the insignificant price differences between 
ASTM grade and non-ASTM grade merchandise, citing Certain Circular 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review(``Thai Pipe and Tube''), 61 FR 
1328, 1330-1331 (January 19, 1996).
    Consistent with Indian Pipe and Tube and Thai Pipe and Tube, for 
this preliminary determination, we have examined: (1) The different 
standards and product uses of ASTM and JIS structural beams; (2) the 
comparative volume of sales and number of buyers of ASTM and JIS 
structural beams in the home market; (3) the price differentials 
between ASTM and JIS structural beams sold in the home market; and (4) 
whether ASTM structural beams sold in the home market consisted of 
production overruns or seconds. We find insufficient information to 
suggest that ASTM grade structural steel beams sold in the Korean home 
market are outside the ordinary course of trade.
    Regarding the different standards and product uses of ASTM and JIS 
structural beams, we find that they generally possess the same 
mechanical and physical characteristics, and are used for the same 
applications. The only difference, as noted by petitioners, is the 
weight tolerance. However, this difference has minimal to no effect on 
the application or the desirability of either product. While 
respondents have stated that the majority of ASTM structural beams 
purchased in the home market were used to construct products for 
export, the fact that ASTM structural beams purchased in the home 
market are ultimately destined for use outside of Korea is not, in this 
case, of import to our analysis of whether these sales have been made 
within the ordinary course of trade, given the other circumstances of 
these sales as discussed below. In fact, the record indicates that ASTM 
structural beams are consumed in the home market, indicating that there 
is a ready market for ASTM structural beams in the home market. 
Regarding the comparative volume of sales and number of buyers of ASTM 
and JIS structural beams in the home market, we do not find that the 
relatively small number of sales of ASTM structural beams in the home 
market (as a percentage, in comparison to respondents' total volume of 
structural beams in the home market) alone suggests that the 
circumstances surrounding respondents' sales of ASTM structural beams 
in the home market are outside the ordinary course of trade. For both 
respondents, there was a significant level of ASTM sales activity as 
evidenced by the fact that there were a significant number of actual 
sales of ASTM structural beams to multiple customers in the home 
market. This differs from Indian Pipe and Tube, in which ASTM grade 
material was sold to only two customers. Regarding the price 
differentials between ASTM and JIS structural steel beams sold in the 
home market, we find there is a minimal difference between ASTM and JIS 
structural steel beams sold in the home market, while in Indian Pipe 
and Tube we noted that there was a wide disparity in sales prices 
between ASTM and Indian Standard pipe. Regarding whether ASTM 
structural steel beams sold in the home market consisted of production 
overruns, we find no evidence that the ASTM grade structural steel 
beams sold in the home market are production overruns. Whereas in 
Indian Pipe and Tube, regarding overruns, the respondent stated, in the 
original investigation, that the ASTM sales were cost overruns, and no 
additional evidence had been offered to counter this information for 
the review segment of that proceeding. Therefore, based on the facts of 
the record, for both respondents, we preliminarily determine that the 
ASTM sales in question are within the ordinary course of trade. See 
also Preliminary Analysis

[[Page 6987]]

Memo: Inchon and Analysis Memorandum: Kangwon.

D. Home Market Sales of Merchandise Supplied by an Unaffiliated 
Producer

    In their original Section A Questionnaire responses, Inchon and 
Kangwon reported that they resold subject merchandise in the home 
market purchased from an unaffiliated manufacturer and requested that 
they be excused from reporting these resales. Based on respondents' 
statements on the record, including the statement that neither company 
sold subject merchandise produced by an unaffiliated manufacturer in 
the United States during the POI, we determined that respondents should 
be excused from reporting home market resales of subject merchandise 
produced by an unaffiliated manufacturer. See Memorandum to the File: 
Request to Not Report Certain Sales (September 28, 1999).

E. Arm's Length Test

Kangwon and Inchon
    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's 
length prices (if any) were excluded from our analysis because we 
considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 
351.102. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length prices, 
we compared, on a model-specific basis, the prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and, for Kangwon, packing. Where, for the 
tested models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party 
were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to unaffiliated 
parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at 
arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). For results of the arm's length 
test, see Analysis Memorandum: Kangwon and Preliminary Analysis Memo: 
Inchon.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Investigation'' section, above, and sold in the home 
market during the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to 
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign 
like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting 
instructions listed in the Department's August 2, 1999 questionnaire.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price is the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price is 
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to 
be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation 
by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise 
or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 
not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under 
subsections (c) and (d). For purposes of this investigation, both 
respondents have classified their sales as EP sales.
    Notwithstanding the above definitions, there are situations where 
we have treated certain transactions as EP sales when a U.S. affiliate 
is involved in the U.S. sales transactions. However, the Department 
normally treats sales through an agent in the United States as CEP 
sales unless the activities of the agent are merely ancillary to the 
sales process. Specifically, where sales are made prior to importation 
through a U.S.-based affiliate to an unaffiliated customer in the 
United States, the Department examines several factors to determine 
whether these sales warrant classification as EP sales. These factors 
are: (1) Whether the merchandise was shipped directly from the 
manufacturer to the unaffiliated U.S. customer without being introduced 
into the physical inventory of the affiliated selling agent; (2) 
whether this is the customary commercial channel between the parties 
involved; and (3) whether the function of the U.S. selling agent is 
limited to that of a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a 
``communication link'' with the unrelated U.S. buyer. Where the factors 
indicate that the activities of the U.S. selling agent are ancillary to 
the sale (e.g., arranging transportation or customs clearance), we 
treat the transactions as EP sales. Where the U.S. selling agent is 
substantially involved in the sales process (e.g., negotiating prices), 
we treat the transactions as CEP sales. See Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 18389, 18391 (April 15, 1997); Mitsubishi 
Heavy Industries v. United States, Slip Op. 98-82 at 6 (CIT June 23, 
1998). The Department has stated that, (w)here the U.S. affiliate has 
more than an incidental involvement in making sales (e.g., solicits 
sales, negotiates contracts or prices) or provides customer support, we 
treat the transactions as CEP sales,'' citing, e.g., Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Canada, 63 FR 12725, 12738 (March 16, 1998).
Inchon
    Inchon identified three channels of distribution for U.S. sales. 
For U.S. sales channel one (i.e., Inchon sales through Hyundai 
Corporation, Inchon's affiliated trading company in South Korea, to 
Hyundai U.S.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Corporation 
located in the United States and an affiliate of Inchon, and finally, 
to an unaffiliated customer), channel two (i.e., Inchon sales through 
Hyundai Corporation, mentioned above, to an unaffiliated customer in 
the United States) and channel three (i.e., Inchon sales to an 
unaffiliated trading customer for export to the United States), we 
based our calculation on EP, in accordance with section 772 (a) of the 
Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by the producer or 
exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or for export to the United States prior to importation, and CEP 
methodology was not otherwise indicated.
    We note that petitioners have argued that sales through channel one 
should be treated as CEP sales; however, as noted above, we 
preliminarily disagree based on the information on the record at this 
time.
    Inchon claimed that all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
are EP sales, including those sales made prior to importation through 
Hyundai U.S.A., Hyundai Corporation's wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary 
(i.e., channel one sales). In looking at the channel one sales, we 
preliminarily agree that all three factors of our test are met for 
channel one sales. First, the merchandise is usually shipped directly 
from Inchon to the U.S. customer without Hyundai U.S.A. taking the 
merchandise into physical inventory. Moreover, this is the customary 
commercial channel between the parties. Thus, the first two factors of 
our test are met. Regarding the third factor, Inchon claims that 
Hyundai U.S.A. does not have the authority to independently solicit, 
negotiate, or

[[Page 6988]]

approve sales to Inchon's U.S. customers. Also, Inchon claims that 
Hyundai U.S.A. does not provide customer support to Inchon's U.S. 
customers. In considering the third of the three factors to determine 
whether certain sales warrant classification as EP sales, we 
preliminarily determine that the affiliated purchaser in the United 
States, Hyundai U.S.A., acted as a processor of sales-related 
documentation and a communication link with the unrelated U.S. buyer 
and that its sales activities are merely ancillary.
    In examining the third factor of our analysis in detail to 
determine whether certain sales warrant classification as EP sales, we 
note the following. First, Inchon states that it solicits and 
negotiates sales, and approves its U.S. sales prices and that Hyundai 
U.S.A. does not perform any of these functions. This contrasts with our 
analysis for Inchon in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the 
Republic of Korea (``Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coil from 
Korea''), 64 FR 30664, 30686 (June 8, 1999), where the record contained 
information that Hyundai U.S.A. had solicited sales, both with and 
without Inchon employees. The record in the present case indicates that 
Inchon personnel, and not those of Hyundai U.S.A., call on U.S. 
customers. Although Hyundai U.S.A. personnel attended meetings with 
U.S. customers, they only did so in an observational capacity and in 
the company of Inchon personnel. Thus, Hyundai U.S.A. personnel did not 
solicit or negotiate any sales, nor did they even independently meet 
with Inchon's customers. This contrasts with Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coil from Korea, where we found that Hyundai U.S.A. employees 
had made sales calls without Inchon employees. Second, Inchon states 
that it bears the credit risk if a U.S. customer does not remit payment 
to Hyundai U.S.A., but that, during the POI, there were no instances of 
a U.S. customer not paying Hyundai U.S.A. This contrasts with the 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coil from Korea, where the record 
contained specific evidence that Hyundai U.S.A. was bearing the credit 
risk. Third, we note that Inchon reported post-sale warehousing at the 
U.S. port prior to delivery to the U.S. customer. We note that 
warehousing is not automatically indicative that the U.S. sales should 
be classified as CEP transactions. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 63 
FR 40422, 40425 (July 29, 1998). Thus, based on the above record, we 
preliminarily determine that Inchon's U.S. sales of structural steel 
beams, in which Hyundai U.S.A. was involved in the sales process, 
reported as EP sales, qualify as EP sales.
    We based EP on the packed, delivered, tax and duty paid price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 
these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the 
plant to the port of export, foreign wharfage, international freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. warehousing, U.S. loading, U.S. customs duty, 
and U.S. wharfage. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount 
for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. For a 
further discussion of this issue, see Preliminary Analysis Memo: 
Inchon.
Kangwon
    Kangwon identified three channels of distribution for U.S. sales. 
In channel one, Kangwon sold directly to the U.S. customers. In channel 
two, Kangwon sold to the U.S. customers through its affiliated 
distributor, Sampyo Corporation. Additionally, for a certain percentage 
of U.S. channel one and two sales, Kangwon reported that Sampyo 
America, a subsidiary of Kangwon, relays pricing information and sales 
order information between Kangwon and its U.S. customers. In channel 
three, Kangwon sold directly to unaffiliated Korean trading companies 
for resale of subject merchandise to the United States. For U.S. sales 
channel three, we based our calculation on EP, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by 
the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States prior to importation, and CEP methodology was not 
otherwise indicated. For U.S. channel one and two sales, including 
those for which Kangwon has reported that Sampyo America had a role in 
the sales process, we based our calculation on EP, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by 
the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States prior to importation, and CEP methodology was not 
otherwise indicated. In determining that channel one and two sales in 
which Sampyo America had a role should be treated as EP, we applied our 
three factor test, described above.
    In determining that channel one and two sales in which Sampyo 
America had a role should be treated as EP, we applied our three factor 
test described above. The record indicates that in all instances 
Kangwon's channel one and two sales were shipped directly from the 
manufacturer to the unaffiliated U.S. customer and that the reported 
U.S. sales were made in the customary commercial channel, thereby 
satisfying the first two factors for EP sales. In determining, for 
those U.S. sales for which Kangwon has indicated that Sampyo America 
participated in the sales process, whether the U.S. affiliate acted 
solely as a ``processor of sales-related documentation'' and a 
``communication link'' with the unaffiliated U.S. customer, we reviewed 
the selling functions performed by Sampyo America and the sales process 
for these sales.
    Kangwon reported that Sampyo America's only participation in the 
sales negotiation process for U.S. channel one and two sales is to 
relay pricing information and sales order information between Kangwon 
and its U.S. customers. Kangwon maintains that all U.S. sales are 
negotiated and approved by Kangwon's Export Department. Kangwon 
reported that for a certain percentage of sales, Kangwon rejected the 
terms of an order forwarded by Sampyo America. In addition to 
forwarding inquiries and confirmations to and from the customer and 
Kangwon, Kangwon stated that employees of Sampyo America also undertook 
business trips, at the instruction and control of Kangwon and by 
Kangwon employees, to meet with Kangwon's U.S. customers and provided 
general market research information for both subject and non-subject 
merchandise to Kangwon. Consequently, because Sampyo America's function 
for certain of Kangwon's U.S. channel one and two sales is limited to 
relaying pricing information and sales order information between 
Kangwon and its U.S. customers, we preliminarily determine that 
Kangwon's U.S. sales of structural beams, in which Sampyo America was 
involved in the sales process, reported as EP sales, qualify as EP 
sales. For a further discussion of this issue, see Analysis Memorandum: 
Kangwon.
    We based EP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. Where appropriate, we deducted billing adjustments and 
price discounts from the gross unit price. We made deductions for 
foreign inland freight (plant to distribution warehouse), warehousing 
expense, foreign inland freight (warehouse to port of exportation), 
brokerage and handling,

[[Page 6989]]

ocean freight (where applicable), marine insurance (where applicable), 
U.S. brokerage charges (where applicable) and U.S. Customs duties 
(where applicable) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty drawback 
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. For a further discussion 
of this issue, see Analysis Memorandum: Kangwon.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were made at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the 
``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections 
of this notice.

Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

    Based on the cost allegations submitted by petitioners in their 
July 7, 1999 petition, the Department found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that Inchon and Kangwon had made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. As a result, the 
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Inchon and 
Kangwon made home market sales during the POI at prices below their 
respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See 
Notice of Initiation. We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of each respondent's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for selling, general and administrative expenses, including interest 
expenses, research and development and packing costs. We relied on the 
COP and CV data submitted by Inchon and Kangwon, except as discussed 
below, where the submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or 
valued.
    We made company-specific adjustments to the reported COP as 
follows:
Inchon
    1. We adjusted Inchon's general and administrative expense ratio to 
include or exclude, as appropriate, certain non-operating items.
Kangwon
    1. We adjusted Kangwon's reported cost of scrap purchased from 
affiliated suppliers to account for the differences between the market 
price of scrap and the transfer price.
    2. We recalculated Kangwon's general and administrative (``G&A'') 
expense ratio by excluding gain from assets contributed, bad debt 
allowance, additional income tax, and miscellaneous gains and losses, 
and dividing the recalculated G&A expenses by cost of goods sold net of 
packing expenses.
    3. We adjusted Kangwon's interest expense ratio by adding back gain 
on exemption of debt and dividing the recalculated interest expense by 
cost of goods sold net of packing expenses.

B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP for each respondent, adjusted 
where appropriate (see above), to home market sales 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 the COP. In 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below 
the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices 
which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a 
product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less 
any applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, other selling 
expenses, and, for Kangwon, home market packing.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the 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 the 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. Because we compared prices to POI or 
fiscal year average costs, 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.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
G&A expenses, including interest expenses, research and development 
expenses, U.S. packing costs (for Kangwon), direct and indirect selling 
expenses, and profit. We made adjustments to each respondent's reported 
cost as indicated above in the COP section. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling, general and administrative 
expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each 
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.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers. Both 
Inchon and Kangwon have reported sales quantities on a theoretical 
weight basis (as recorded in their internal books) and maintain that 
actual weight is recorded for only a limited number of sales. However, 
petitioners argue that the JIS and ASTM standards vary in their level 
of acceptable weight variances; thus, petitioners argue that 
respondents have effectively overreported the actual quantity of home 
market sales by approximately 4 percent and the actual quantity of U.S. 
sales by only 2.5 percent, thereby distorting reported unit prices. 
Consequently, petitioners have requested that home market prices be 
adjusted upwards by 1.5 percent. In the Department's supplemental 
questionnaires for Inchon and Kangwon (issued in January 2000), we 
requested that respondents provide actual weights for sample sales of 
subject merchandise in the home market and U.S. (where available). The 
data provided by respondents indicate that there are no significant 
differences between JIS and ASTM actual and theoretical weights. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that no adjustment is warranted.
Inchon
    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated home market 
customers. We made a deduction for inland freight from the plant to the 
customer. We made billing adjustments, where appropriate. We made 
circumstance-of-sale (``COS'') adjustments based on differences in 
direct selling expenses (i.e., credit, warranty expense, and interest 
revenue) incurred on U.S. and home market sales, where appropriate.

[[Page 6990]]

Where appropriate, we deducted from NV the amount of home market 
indirect selling expenses capped by the amount of the U.S. commissions. 
Normally, we deduct home market packing costs and add U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6); however, in the instant 
case, we did not deduct home market packing costs nor add U.S. packing 
costs because Inchon has stated that there is no difference between its 
home market and U.S. packing costs, and has included packing costs in 
its COP.
Kangwon
    We calculated NV for comparison to EP sales based on prices to 
unaffiliated home market customers. We made a deduction for inland 
freight-plant to distribution warehouse, warehousing expense, inland 
freight-warehouse to customer. In its questionnaire responses, Kangwon 
reported that Kangwon pays Sampyo America a set per metric ton fee for 
all sales by Kangwon through U.S. sales channels one and two regardless 
of the extent to which Sampyo America was involved in relaying sales 
information for these sales, up to a set amount. Petitioners have 
argued that since the fees received by Sampyo America vary with sales 
levels, the Department should treat the fees as a direct selling 
expense. We note that the fees in question constitute a type of 
commission paid by Kangwon to Sampyo America. The Department's 
questionnaire specifically instructs respondent not to ``report 
commissions paid to affiliated selling agents unless there is a 
compelling reason that you cannot report an affiliated agent's actual 
expenses.'' See Department's August 30, 1999 Questionnaire at page C-
28. In this case, Kangwon has reported these fees in its calculation of 
indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that no COS adjustment is appropriate for the 
fees in question. We made a COS adjustment based on differences in 
direct selling expenses (i.e., credit) incurred on U.S. and home market 
sales, where appropriate. In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
if we were unable to find a home market match of the foreign like 
product. We made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) 
of the Act. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting 
home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses.

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 
the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is the level of the 
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make 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 differences in the levels between NV and 
CEP sales 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 Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In the present review, none of the respondents requested a LOT 
adjustment. To ensure that no such adjustment was necessary, in 
accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information 
regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and Korean 
markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and 
selling expenses for each respondent.
Inchon
    In the home market, Inchon reported two sales channels: (1) To 
unaffiliated distributors; and (2) to affiliated and unaffiliated end-
users. We examined the selling functions performed for both channels. 
These selling functions included inventory maintenance, freight and 
delivery arrangements, warranty service, and credit risk. Because there 
are no differences between the selling functions on sales made to 
either unaffiliated distributors or affiliated and unaffiliated end-
users in the home market, sales to both of these customer categories 
represent a similar stage of marketing. Therefore, we preliminarily 
conclude that sales to unaffiliated distributors and affiliated and 
unaffiliated end-users constitute one LOT in the home market.
    For its EP sales in the U.S. market, Inchon reported three sales 
channels: (1) Channel one--Inchon sales through Hyundai Corporation, 
Inchon's affiliated trading company, to Hyundai U.S.A., a wholly owned 
subsidiary of Hyundai Corporation located in the United States and an 
affiliate of Inchon, and finally, to an unaffiliated customer; (2) 
channel two--Inchon sales through Hyundai Corporation, to an 
unaffiliated customer; and (3) channel three--Inchon sales to an 
unaffiliated trading company. Inchon's U.S. customers for all three 
sales channels are trading companies and distributors. We examined the 
selling functions performed for each of the three U.S. sales channels. 
These selling functions included warranty service, freight and delivery 
arrangements, credit services, and post-sale warehousing. With the 
exception of post-sale warehousing for certain sales in channel one, 
selling functions performed in the three sales channels were the same. 
Thus, sales to these customer categories represent a similar stage of 
marketing. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Inchon provided a 
sufficiently similar degree of services on sales to all three channels 
of distribution, and that the sales made to the United States 
constitute one LOT.
    Further, we preliminarily conclude that because the U.S. LOT and 
the home market LOT included similar selling functions, these sales are 
made at the same LOT. Therefore, a LOT adjustment for Inchon is not 
appropriate.
Kangwon
    Kangwon did not claim a LOT adjustment. Kangwon identified two 
channels of distribution in the home market: (1) Sales made by Kangwon 
directly to its customers; and (2) sales made by Kangwon through Sampyo 
Corporation, to customers. Both Kangwon and Sampyo Corporation made 
sales to affiliated and unaffiliated industrial end-users and 
distributors. In addition, Kangwon made a limited quantity of sales to 
government entities. For both reported channels, Kangwon maintains that 
the sales process and selling functions performed by Kangwon are 
identical. Moreover,

[[Page 6991]]

Kangwon explained that the only differences between Kangwon's sales to 
government end-users and its sales to end-users and distributors are 
that most sales to the latter are made through Sampyo Corporation and 
that different terms of sale and terms of delivery are offered to 
government entities. We reviewed the selling functions and services 
performed by either Kangwon or Sampyo Corporation and preliminarily 
determined that for both channels of distribution and all classes of 
customer, the selling functions and services offered are similar. See 
Analysis Memorandum: Kangwon. Consequently, because channels of 
distribution do not qualify as separate LOTs when the selling functions 
performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar, we 
preliminarily determine that there exists one LOT for Kangwon's home 
market sales.
    Kangwon identified three channels of distribution in the U.S. 
market: (1) Sales made by Kangwon directly to U.S. distributors; (2) 
sales made by Kangwon to U.S. distributors through Sampyo Corporation; 
and (3) sales made by Kangwon to unaffiliated Korean trading companies 
for shipment to the United States. In addition, Kangwon reported that 
its U.S.-based subsidiary, Sampyo America, was involved in the sales 
process for certain U.S. channel one and two sales. However, pursuant 
to our analysis above, such sales were treated as EP sales. Kangwon 
claimed one LOT in the U.S. market. The Department examined the claimed 
selling functions performed by Kangwon, Sampyo Corporation, and Sampyo 
America for all U.S. sales. These selling functions included warranty, 
freight and delivery arrangements, and invoicing customers.
    Based on our analysis of the chains of distribution and selling 
functions performed for sales in the home market and EP sales in the 
U.S. market, we preliminarily find that EP sales to all three channels 
of distribution are made at the same stage in the marketing process and 
involve identical selling functions. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that Kangwon, Sampyo Corporation, and Sampyo America provided 
a sufficiently similar degree of services on sales to all three 
channels of distribution, and that the sales made to the United States 
constitute one LOT.
    Based on a comparison of the selling activities performed in the 
U.S. market to the selling activities in the home market, we 
preliminarily determine that there is not a significant difference in 
the selling functions performed in both markets, and thus, a LOT 
adjustment is not appropriate. For a further discussion, see Analysis 
Memorandum: Kangwon.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank.
    Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 
unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's 
practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate 
differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is 
defined as the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. 
When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the 
benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established 
practice. Further, section 773A(b) of the Act directs the Department to 
allow a 60-day adjustment period when a currency has undergone a 
sustained movement. A sustained movement has occurred when the weekly 
average of actual daily rates exceeds the weekly average of benchmark 
rates by more than five percent for eight consecutive weeks. (For an 
explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency 
Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996).)

Verification

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

The All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others 
rate is the amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated 
weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and 
producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis 
margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the 
Act. Therefore, for this preliminary determination, we have calculated 
the all-other rate based on the weighted average of the estimated 
weighted average dumping margins for both Kangwon and Inchon.

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 export price, as indicated in the 
chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain 
in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inchon.....................................................        14.95
Kangwon....................................................        47.55
All-Others.................................................        30.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying 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 50 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than 55 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination. 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 57 days after the publication of the preliminary 
determination, time and room to be determined, at the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 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;

[[Page 6992]]

(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.
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication in the Federal Register of our preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 2, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-3260 Filed 2-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P