[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 59 (Monday, March 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16173-16175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-859, A-557-810, A-533-819, A-549-816]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Steel Wire Rope 
From India, Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abdelali Elouaradia or Gabriel Adler 
at (202) 482-0498 and (202) 482-1442, respectively; Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 citations to the Department's regulations are references 
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

The Petitions

    On March 1, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received petitions filed in proper form by the Committee of Domestic 
Steel Wire Rope and Speciality Cable Manufacturers (the petitioner). 
The Department received information supplementing the petitions 
throughout the initiation period.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioner 
alleges that imports of steel wire rope from India, Malaysia, the 
People's Republic of China (China), and Thailand are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within 
the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are 
materially injuring an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to each of the antidumping 
investigations that it is requesting the Department to initiate (see 
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions below).

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is steel 
wire rope. Steel wire rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of 
iron or carbon or stainless steel, other than stranded wire, not fitted 
with fittings or made up into articles, and not made up of brass-plated 
wire. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under 
subheadings: 7312.10.6030, 7312.10.6060, 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, 
and 7312.10.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs Service purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.
    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioner to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the 
preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting 
aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. 
The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments by April 
7, 2000. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of 
scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to 
the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Rescission of 
Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-
81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this subtitle.'' Thus, the reference point from which the 
domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    The domestic like product referred to in the petitions is the 
single domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of Investigations'' 
section, above. No party has commented on the petition's definition of 
domestic like product, and there is nothing on the record to

[[Page 16174]]

indicate that this definition is inaccurate. The Department, therefore, 
has adopted the domestic like product definition set forth in the 
petitions.
    Moreover, the Department has determined that the petitions contain 
adequate evidence of industry support; therefore, polling is 
unnecessary (see Initiation Checklist, dated March 16, 2000 (Initiation 
Checklist), at Attachment Re: Industry Support). For all four countries 
covered by the petitions, the petitioner established industry support 
representing over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like 
product. Accordingly, the Department determines that these petitions 
are filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of 
section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations. The petitioner, in determining normal 
value (NV) for India, Malaysia and Thailand, relied upon price data 
contained in confidential market research reports filed with the 
Department. At the Department's request, the petitioner arranged for 
the Department to contact the author of the reports to verify the 
accuracy of the data, the methodology used to collect the data, and the 
credentials of those gathering the market research. The Department's 
discussions with the author of the market research reports are 
summarized in the Initiation Checklist. The sources of data for the 
deductions and adjustments relating to home market price, U.S. price, 
and factors of production are also discussed in the Initiation 
Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as 
facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or 
final determinations, we may re-examine the information and revise the 
margin calculations, if appropriate.

China

Export Price

    The petitioner identified Fasten Bloc. Company (Fasten), Jiangying 
Wire Rope Plant, Qingdao Steel Wire Rope Plant, Tianjin Wire Rope 
Factory, Ningxia Shizuishan Steel Plant, Liaoning Metals & Minerals 
Import and Export Corp, Guizhou Steel Union Metal Limited, Anshan Iron 
and Steel Company, Wuxi Steel Wire Rope Factory and Sichuan Steel Wire 
Rope Plant as the major producers and exporters of subject merchandise 
in China.
    The petitioner determined export price (EP) using two different 
methods. It first calculated EP based on the import average unit value 
(AUV) for the ten-digit category of the HTSUS (i.e., 7132.10.9030) 
accounting for the largest volume of in-scope imports from China in 
1999. For this HTSUS subheading, the petitioner calculated the AUV 
using the reported quantity and customs value for imports as recorded 
in the U.S. Bureau of the Census' IM-146 import statistics for the 
month of December 1999. The petitioner made a deduction for estimated 
inland freight charges incurred in moving the subject merchandise from 
the Chinese plant to the closest port of export.
    Second, the petitioner based EP on contemporaneous offers for sale 
made by Fasten to a U.S. unaffiliated purchaser for seven specific wire 
rope products, provided through an affidavit. This information was 
obtained from industry sources in the United States. The petitioner 
calculated a net U.S. price for each sale by subtracting, where 
appropriate, estimated international freight and insurance, foreign 
inland freight, U.S. customs duties, and merchandise processing and 
harbor maintenance fees.

Normal Value

    The petitioner asserts that the Department considers China to be a 
non-market economy country (NME), and constructed NV based on the 
factors of production (FOP) methodology pursuant to section 773(c) of 
the Act. In previous cases, the Department has determined that China is 
an NME. See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, 
With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 
5770, 5773 (February 5, 1999). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) 
of the Act, the NME status remains in effect until revoked by the 
Department. The NME status of China has not been revoked by the 
Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the 
initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product 
appropriately is based on FOP valued in a surrogate market economy 
country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of 
this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide 
relevant information related to the issues of China's NME status and 
the granting of separate rates to individual exporters.
    For the NV calculation, the petitioner based the FOP, as defined by 
section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, labor, and energy), for 
steel wire rope on the quantities of inputs used by petitioning 
companies. The petitioner asserted that detailed information was not 
available regarding the quantities of inputs used by steel wire rope 
producers in China. It assumed, for purposes of the petition, that the 
main producer in China (Fasten) uses the same inputs in the same 
quantities as the petitioner's most similar plant based on plant 
facilities and equipment. Based on the information provided by the 
petitioner, we believe that the adjusted FOP represent information 
reasonably available to the petitioner and is appropriate for purposes 
of initiation of this investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner 
valued FOP, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate 
country data. Citing past Department practice, the petitioner used 
India as the surrogate country. Input and packing materials were valued 
based on India's import values, as published in the Monthly Statistics 
of the Foreign Trade of India. Labor was valued using the regression-
based wage rate for China, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). 
Electricity was valued using the rate for India published in the 
International Energy Agency's Energy Prices and Taxes Quarterly 
Statistics. The petitioner conservatively did not include a value for 
natural gas. For overhead, SG&A and profit, the petitioner applied 
rates derived from the public annual report of an Indian producer of 
subject merchandise, Tata Iron and Steel Company.
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel wire 
rope from China range from 5 percent to 58 percent.

India

Export Price

    The petitioner used two different methods to determine EP for 
India. First, the petitioner submitted an Indian producer's offer for 
sale of two specific wire rope products in the United States. The 
petitioner calculated an ex-factory U.S. price for each sale by 
subtracting from each price quote, where appropriate, movement related 
charges, specifically foreign inland freight, international freight and 
insurance, U.S. import duties, merchandise processing fees, and harbor 
maintenance fees.
    Second, the petitioner calculated EP using AUV data for the 
following HTSUS: 7312.10.9090 and 7312.10.9060. The petitioner 
calculated the AUV using the reported quantity and customs value for 
imports as recorded in the U.S. Bureau of the

[[Page 16175]]

Census' IM-146 import statistics for the month of December 1999. 
Deductions were made for foreign inland freight charges incurred in 
moving the subject merchandise from the plant in India to the closest 
port of export.

Normal Value

    The petitioner identified Usha Martin Industries Limited, Mohatta & 
Heckel Ltd., Bombay Wire Ropes Limited, Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd., Asahi 
Steel Industries Ltd., Wellworth Wire Ropes Pvt. Ltd., and Davangere 
Wire Rope Industry Pvt. Ltd. as the producers accounting for almost all 
steel wire rope production in India. NV was based on actual price 
quotes from several Indian manufacturers to a customer in India for 
specific wire rope products. This information was obtained principally 
through the foreign market researcher. The price quotes are provided on 
an ex-factory basis, exclusive of all taxes. The petitioner subtracted 
estimated foreign packing costs and added estimated U.S. packing costs 
to the price quotes.
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel wire 
rope from India range from 59 percent to 142 percent.

Malaysia

Export Price

    The petitioner based export price on AUV data, using the reported 
quantity and customs value for imports as recorded in the U.S. Bureau 
of the Census' IM-146 import statistics for the following ten-digit 
categories of the HTSUS: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060 and 7312.10.9090. 
The petitioner used the AUV data from the month of December 1999. The 
petitioner conservatively did not make any deductions for movement 
expenses.

Normal Value

    The petitioner identified KISWIRE SDN. BHD (KISWIRE), Southern Wire 
Industries SDN. BHD. (Southern Wire) and Berjaya Kawat Manufacturing 
SDN. BHD. as the producers accounting for almost all steel wire rope 
production in Malaysia. NV is based on Malaysian home market price 
quotes. The foreign market researcher obtained prices offered by 
Malaysian distributors to unrelated customers. Since the price quotes 
came from distributors, the petitioner made a deduction for the 
estimated distributors' mark-up. Additionally, the petitioner 
subtracted estimated home market packing expenses and added estimated 
U.S. packing expenses to calculate net price.
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel wire 
rope from Malaysia range from 11 percent to 63 percent.

Thailand

Export Price

    The petitioner based export price on AUV data, using the reported 
quantity and customs value for imports as recorded in the U.S. Bureau 
of the Census' IM-146 import statistics for the following ten-digit 
categories of the HTSUS: 7312.10.9030 and 7312.10.9060. The petitioner 
used the information from the month of December 1999. The petitioner 
conservatively did not make any deductions for movement expenses.

Normal Value

    The petitioner identified Usha Siam Steel Industries Public Co., 
Ltd. (Usha Siam); Lee Thai Mui 1991 Co., Ltd. (Lee Thai Mui); Jinyang 
Wire Rope (Thailand) Co., Ltd.; Thai Steel Cable Co., Ltd.; Thai Wire 
Products Pcl, and Steel Processing (Thailand) Co., Ltd. as the 
producers which account for almost all steel wire rope production in 
Thailand. The foreign market researcher obtained five prices quotes for 
sale offers to unrelated customers in Thailand. The petitioner 
calculated net prices for sales in Thailand by subtracting estimated 
home market packing expenses and adding estimated U.S. packing 
expenses.
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel wire 
rope from Thailand range from 49 percent to 69 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of steel wire rope from China, India, Malaysia and 
Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. The petitioner contends 
that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining 
trends in net operating profits, net sales volumes, profit to sales 
ratios, and capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and 
causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs 
import data, lost sales, and pricing information. We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and 
causation, and have determined that these allegations are properly 
supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation (see Initiation Checklist at Attachment Re: 
Material Injury).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on steel wire rope, we 
have found that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of 
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations 
to determine whether imports of steel wire rope from China, India, 
Malaysia and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value. Unless this deadline is 
extended, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 
days after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of each petition has been provided to the 
representatives of China, India, Malaysia and Thailand. We will attempt 
to provide a copy of the public version of each petition to each 
exporter named in the petition, as appropriate.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine, no later than April 17, 2000, whether there 
is a reasonable indication that imports of certain steel wire rope 
products from China, India, Malaysia and Thailand are causing material 
injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A 
negative ITC determination for any country will result in the 
investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, 
these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory 
time limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 17, 2000.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-7384 Filed 3-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P