[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18283-18285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8700]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-806]


Carbon Steel Wire Rope from Mexico: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and 
Determination Not To Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review and new shipper review, and determination not to 
revoke the antidumping duty order in part.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel 
wire rope from Mexico in response to requests by respondent Aceros 
Camesa S.A. de C.V. (Camesa) and petitioner, the Committee of Domestic 
Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers (the Committee). 
Camesa also requested that the order be revoked as it pertains to sales 
of its products to the United States. This review covers exports of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period March 1, 
1998 through February 28, 1999.
    We have preliminarily determined that Camesa's sales have been made 
below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of this administrative review, we will instruct the 
U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the 
difference between the export price (EP) or constructed export price 
(CEP) and the NV.
    The Department is also conducting a new shipper review of the 
antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico in 
response to a request by respondent Cablesa S.A. de C.V. (Cablesa).\1\ 
This new shipper review also covers exports of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the period March 1, 1998 through February 28, 
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ After receiving from Cablesa a waiver of the normal time 
limits for a new shipper review under 19 CFR Sec. 351.214(j)(3), we 
determined to publish the results of this new shipper review 
simultaneously with the results of the administrative review. See  
64 FR 61825 (November 15, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have preliminarily determined that Cablesa's sales have not been 
made below NV. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate 
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
comment a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the comment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, (202) 482-0666, or 
Maureen Flannery, (202) 482-3020, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 
20230.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise stated, 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. In 
addition, unless otherwise stated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are references to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR 
part 351 (April 1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping 
duty order on steel wire rope from Mexico on March 25, 1993 (58 FR 
16173). On March 9, 1999 we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 
11439) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Mexico covering the 
period March 1, 1998 through February 28, 1999.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Camesa requested that we

[[Page 18284]]

conduct an administrative review of its sales. The Committee also 
requested a review of Camesa's sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1). We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping 
duty administrative review on April 30, 1999 (64 FR 23269).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214, Cablesa requested that we 
conduct a new shipper review of its sales. We published a notice of 
initiation of this new shipper review on May 7, 1999 (64 FR 24573).
    In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii), the Department 
initiated a sales-below-cost investigation of Camesa. The Department 
determined to initiate this inquiry because, during the immediately 
preceding review of this antidumping duty order, the second 
administrative review, the Department disregarded some of Camesa's 
below-cost sales. The final results of the second administrative review 
were published on July 27, 1999 (64 FR 40549). We received cost data 
from Camesa on August 2, 1999.
    During this review, the Department conducted verifications of the 
information provided by Cablesa and information provided by Camesa 
concerning its further manufacturing of subject merchandise in the 
United States. We used standard verification procedures, including on-
site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of 
relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results for 
Cablesa are outlined in business-proprietary and public versions of the 
verification reports. Our verification results for Camesa are not 
available (refer to following paragraph).
    On September 28, 1999, the Department received a letter from Camesa 
announcing its intention not to continue participating in this review, 
including the final days of verification scheduled for the following 
week. It stated that all material it had submitted during this review 
should be returned by the Department and the Committee and removed from 
the record. The Department destroyed all such material with the 
exception of Camesa's September 28 letter. See Memorandum to the File 
(November 5, 1999).

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is carbon steel wire rope. Steel 
wire rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon 
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 the following Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060 and 
7312.10.9090.
    Excluded from this review is stainless steel wire rope, which is 
classifiable under the HTS subheading 7312.10.6000, and all forms of 
stranded wire, with the following exception.
    Based on the affirmative final determination of circumvention of 
the antidumping duty order, 60 FR 10831 (Feb. 28, 1995), the Department 
has determined that steel wire strand, when manufactured in Mexico by 
Camesa and imported into the United States for use in the production of 
steel wire rope, falls within the scope of the antidumping duty order 
on steel wire rope from Mexico. Such merchandise is currently 
classifiable under subheading 7312.10.3020 of the HTS.
    Although HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this order remains 
dispositive.
    These reviews cover the period March 1, 1998 through February 28, 
1999.

Camesa

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if any interested party: 
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping 
proceeding; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot 
be verified, the Department shall use the facts otherwise available 
(FA) in reaching the applicable determination under this title.
    As noted above, Camesa notified the Department of its intent not to 
continue participating in the administrative review and requested the 
return or destruction of all of its submissions. Additionally, Camesa 
informed the Department that it would not be participating further in 
verification. Thus, the Department does not have any information with 
which to calculate a margin. We determine that Camesa's actions amount 
to withholding information requested by the Department, thus 
significantly impeding our review. As such, consistent with sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we are relying upon the facts 
otherwise available. Furthermore, we determine that Camesa did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability with our requests for information, 
and that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the use of adverse FA 
is appropriate.
    Under section 776(b) of the Act, adverse FA may include reliance on 
information derived from: (1) The petition, (2) a final determination 
in the investigation, (3) any previous review under section 751 of the 
Act or determination under section 753 of the Act, or (4) any other 
information placed on the record. For Camesa, we have used the highest 
rate from the investigation, 111.68 percent, which is the ``all others 
rate'' established in the investigation and which was Camesa's rate 
until the first review.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information using 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (SAA) provides 
that ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy 
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
See SAA, at 870. In this case, the margin we are using is Camesa's 
margin from the investigation of sales at less than fair value (LTFV). 
Therefore, we consider the rate to have probative value.

Determination Not To Revoke in Part

    Section 351.222(b)(2)(i) requires that in order for the Department 
to revoke an order in part we must, among other requirements, determine 
that the exporter or producer has sold the merchandise at not less than 
NV for a period of at least three consecutive years. Because we have 
determined that Camesa has sold subject merchandise at less than NV 
during the current review period, we have determined not to revoke the 
order in part.

Cablesa

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Cablesa covered by the description in the ``Scope 
of Review'' section, above, and sold in the home market during the 
period of review (POR) to be foreign like products for the purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons with U.S. sales. In the 
Product Concordance section (Appendix V) of our questionnaire, we 
provided the following hierarchy of product characteristics to be used 
for reporting identical and most similar comparisons of merchandise: 
(1) Type of steel wire (finishing type); (2) diameter of wire rope; (3) 
type of core; (4) class of wire rope; (5) grade of steel; (6) number of 
wires per strand; (7) design of strands; and (8) lay of rope.
    Cablesa requested that we allow it to limit its reporting of home 
market sales of steel wire rope to products having the

[[Page 18285]]

same finish and belonging to the same class as those products sold in 
the United States. Product finish can be either galvanized or non-
galvanized. Product class is determined by the number of wires and 
strands twined together to produce a rope. Cablesa argued that sales 
with the same finish and within the same class would provide all 
necessary matches for the U.S. sale, because such products were most 
similar. Cablesa stressed that, because the Department was not 
conducting a sales-below-cost test, it could conduct its analysis with 
sales of these similar products alone, and that any other reported 
sales would be superfluous. We agreed that Cablesa could limit its 
reporting as requested, but stated that we might at a later date 
require the reporting of additional home market sales on short notice. 
See Letter from Barbara Tillman to Cablesa (July 31, 1999).
    On January 11, 2000, the Department requested that Cablesa submit 
additional home market sales. On January 28, 2000, Cablesa submitted a 
response containing some additional sales information and requesting 
that the Department calculate NV using this additional information or 
information previously placed on the record. Upon reviewing Cablesa's 
submission, we determined that this additional information, combined 
with information already on the record, is sufficient for margin 
calculation purposes. Specifically, Cablesa's submission demonstrates 
that, although the Department does not have sales data for all of 
Cablesa's home market sales during the POR, any additional home market 
sales data would not be of similar merchandise, and thus would not 
provide valid matches. For a more detailed discussion, see Memorandum 
to Edward Yang, Basis for Normal Value (March 30, 2000).

United States Price

    We based United States price on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of 
the Act, because the merchandise was sold directly by the manufacturer 
to an unaffiliated U.S. purchaser prior to the date of importation, and 
because CEP was not indicated by other facts of record.
    The Department calculated EP for Cablesa based on packed, delivered 
prices to customers in the United States. We made deductions for 
domestic and foreign inland freight expenses, inland insurance, U.S. 
customs duties, and brokerage and handling, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A).

Normal Value

    We have preliminarily determined that none of the home market sales 
reported by Cablesa provides a suitable basis for calculating NV. Each 
reported home market sale is either not contemporaneous with the U.S. 
sale, would require a difference in merchandise adjustment of greater 
than 20 percent to be matched with the U.S. sale, or could not be shown 
to have been made on an arm's-length basis with home market customers. 
Therefore, we based NV on constructed value (CV). CV consists of the 
cost of manufacturing the product sold in the United States, plus 
amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses, interest 
expenses, U.S. packing expenses, U.S. credit expenses, and profit made 
on sales of foreign like merchandise in the home market. We deducted an 
amount for home market credit expense in order to compare CV to the 
U.S. sale.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    For Camesa, based on adverse facts available, and for Cablesa, 
based on our comparison of CV and EP, we preliminarily determine that 
the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aceros Camesa, S.A. de C.V.................................       111.68
Cablesa, S.A. de C.V.......................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose its calculations within 5 business 
days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
Sec. 351.310(d), any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after 
the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days 
after the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of 
final results of this administrative review, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, not 
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of 
steel wire rope products from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the 
final results of these reviews; (2) For merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in these reviews but covered in 
the original investigation of sales at LTFV or a previous review, the 
cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) If the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this or a previous review, or the original LTFV investigation, but 
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established 
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 
(4) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the 
cash deposit rate shall be 111.68 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation (58 FR 7531, February 8, 1993).
    These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 USC 
1675(a)) and 19 CFR Secs. 351.213-14.

    Dated: March 30, 2000.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8700 Filed 4-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P