[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30062-30064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11597]



[[Page 30062]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-421-804]


Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from the petitioners and respondent, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. The review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999. The sole 
respondent did not respond to our supplemental questionnaire and 
subsequently withdrew from this review. As a result, we are basing our 
preliminary results on adverse facts available. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we 
will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on 
entries during the POR.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Robert James, 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-2657 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994. In 
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Background

    The Department of Commerce published an antidumping duty order on 
cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands on August 
19, 1993 (58 FR 44172). The Department published a notice of 
``Opportunity To Request Administrative Review'' of the antidumping 
duty order for the 1998-1999 review period on August 11, 1999 (64 FR 
43649). On August 31, 1999, both the respondent, Hoogovens Staal BV and 
Hoogovens Steel USA, Inc. (Hoogovens), and petitioners (Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, U.S. Steel Group (a Unit of USX Corporation), Ispat Inland 
Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc. and National Steel Corporation) filed 
requests for review. We published a notice of initiation of the review 
on October 1, 1999 (64 FR 53318).
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review include cold-rolled (cold-
reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled products, of rectangular shape, 
neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, 
varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, in 
coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a 
width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a 
thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or 
greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a 
thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 
millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 
7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0090, 7209.17.0030, 
7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550, 
7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 
7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 
7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6085, 
7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.50.0015, 
7215.50.0060, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 
7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 
and 7217.90.5090. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of 
nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is certain 
shadow mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil that 
is open-coil annealed, has a carbon content of less than 0.002 percent, 
is of 0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches in width, and 
has an ultra flat, isotropic surface. These HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that if an interested 
party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been 
requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or 
in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) 
of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority 
shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title.
    On October 5, 1999, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Hoogovens. Hoogovens submitted its response to 
sections A, B, C, and the constructed value (CV) portion of section D 
on November 19, 1999. On December 9, 1999, petitioners alleged that 
Hoogovens had made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of 
production (COP) and requested that the Department commence a sales-
below-cost investigation. Based on our review of petitioners' 
allegation, we determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that Hoogovens had made sales of subject merchandise in the 
Netherlands at prices below COP. Thus, on December 22, 1999, the 
Department announced that it would initiate a sales-below-cost 
investigation to determine whether Hoogovens' sales of cold-rolled 
carbon steel flat products were made at prices below COP during the 
POR. We subsequently issued a letter requiring Hoogovens to submit home 
market COP data by January 20,

[[Page 30063]]

2000. Hoogovens timely responded to this initial COP questionnaire.
    On January 18, 2000 the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to address significant deficiencies in sections A, B, and 
C of Hoogovens' original questionnaire. In our supplemental 
questionnaire we requested clarification on issues such as the total 
value of home market sales and the calculation of various home market 
and U.S. movement and selling expenses. Additionally, the Department 
sought information concerning the sales process in the U.S. in order to 
determine whether Hoogovens' U.S. sales should be classified as export 
price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) sales. We requested that 
Hoogovens respond to this supplemental questionnaire by February 1, 
2000. In response to Hoogovens' requests on January 28, 2000 and 
February 8, 2000 to extend this deadline, the Department first granted 
an extension until February 15, 2000 and then a further extension until 
February 22, 2000. On February 17, 2000, Hoogovens submitted another 
request that the deadline for its response be postponed. The Department 
declined this third request for an extension.
    Hoogovens did not submit a response to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire. In a March 3, 2000 submission Hoogovens 
declared that it was withdrawing from this review because the recent 
merger between Hoogovens and British Steel to form the Corus Group 
rendered Hoogovens ``unable at this time to devote the necessary 
resources to the Department's review.''
    Absent the supplemental information requested by the Department, we 
find that Hoogovens' original questionnaire response is unusable for 
purposes of our analysis. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Tariff Act, 
the Department must consider information submitted by an interested 
party if all of the following criteria are met: (1) The information is 
submitted by the deadline established for its submission; (2) the 
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the 
requirements established by the administering authority with respect to 
the information; and (5) the information can be used without undue 
difficulties.
    Hoogovens withdrew from this review without ever responding to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire. In failing to provide 
clarification on significant issues in this case, we have determined 
that Hoogovens did not act to the best of its ability. Without the 
additional information and clarification we requested on Hoogovens' 
home market sales value, U.S. sales process, and home market and U.S. 
expense calculations, the Department cannot determine whether the 
complete universe of home market sales was reported, whether Hoogovens 
Stahl USA's (HSUSA's) sales should be classified as EP or CEP, or 
whether Hoogovens has reported certain of its home market and U.S. 
expenses appropriately. Therefore, the information provided in the 
original questionnaire response does not serve as a reliable basis upon 
which to calculate a dumping margin for Hoogovens. Further, because of 
Hoogovens' withdrawal from this proceeding, the Department could not 
verify, as provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, any of the 
information that Hoogovens placed on the record prior to its 
withdrawal.
    Since Hoogovens failed to meet the requirements set forth in 
section 782(e) of the Tariff Act, we have determined that the 
information submitted by Hoogovens in this review cannot be used to 
make a determination in this case. Therefore, we determine that the use 
of facts available is warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(C) of the Tariff Act because Hoogovens failed to provide information 
requested by the Department and significantly impeded this proceeding.
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994).
    The Department finds that in not responding to the supplemental 
questionnaire, Hoogovens failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we may, in making our 
determination, use an adverse inference in selecting from the facts 
otherwise available. This adverse inference may include reliance on 
data derived from the petition, a previous determination in an 
investigation or review, or any other information placed on the record. 
For this review we have assigned a margin of 19.32 percent as the facts 
available rate to Hoogovens. This rate represents the highest rate for 
any respondent in any prior segment of this proceeding, which happens 
to be a prior rate calculated for Hoogovens itself, as corrected 
pursuant to litigation. See Amended Final Determination Pursuant to CIT 
Decision: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the 
Netherlands, 61 FR 47871 (September 11, 1996).
    Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information, and section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides 
that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value (see the 
SAA at 870.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a 
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is 
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is 
not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin)).
    As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability 
of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further, 
there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate 
as facts

[[Page 30064]]

available. Again, this margin represents a calculated rate for 
Hoogovens, using its own data and as corrected pursuant to litigation. 
Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 19.32 percent rate is 
corroborated.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
weighted-average dumping margin of 19.32 percent exists for Hoogovens 
for the period August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.
    Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days 
after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case 
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary 
of the argument, not to exceed five pages in length. Any interested 
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Requests for 
a hearing should specify the number of participants and identify the 
issues to be discussed. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two 
days after the submission of rebuttal briefs, if any, or the first 
working day thereafter. See 19 CFR 351.310(c) and (d). The Department 
will publish a notice of the final results of the administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
by the parties, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Cash Deposit

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The 
cash deposit rate for Hoogovens will be the rate established in the 
final results of this administrative review; (2) for exporters not 
covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the original 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, 
previous reviews, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the 
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 
19.32 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the original fair 
value investigation (61 FR 47871).
    These deposit requirements, 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 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 in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: Dated: May 2, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-11597 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P