[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 228 (Monday, November 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70696-70697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30144]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-823-809, A-841-804]


Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and Moldova

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Mark Manning at (202) 
482-4162 and (202) 482-3936, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Group 
II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances

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 (2000).

Background

    On July 18, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
initiated investigations to determine whether imports of steel concrete 
reinforcing bars (rebar) from Ukraine and Moldova, among others, are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) (65 FR 45754, July 25, 2000). On August 14, 2000, the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that there is a 
reasonable indication of material injury to the domestic industry from 
imports of rebar from Ukraine and Moldova, among other countries. On 
August 22, 2000, the petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of rebar from the above-referenced two countries.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner also alleged that there is a reason to 
believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to 
imports of rebar from Belarus. However, we are not making a 
determination with respect to this country at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because the petitioner 
submitted critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days before 
the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations, the Department 
must issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations not later 
than the date of the preliminary determinations. In a policy bulletin 
issued on October 8, 1998, the Department stated that it may issue 
preliminary critical circumstances determinations prior to the date of 
the preliminary determinations of dumping, assuming sufficient evidence 
of critical circumstances is available (see Change in Policy Regarding 
Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances Determinations, 63 FR 
55364). In accordance with this policy, at this time we are issuing the 
preliminary critical circumstances decision in the investigations of 
imports of rebar from Ukraine and Moldova for the reasons discussed 
below and in the concurrent Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Troy H. 
Cribb: Antidumping Duty Investigations of Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bar from Ukraine and Moldova--Preliminary Affirmative Determinations of 
Critical Circumstances (Critical Circumstances Preliminary 
Determinations Memorandum).

Critical Circumstances

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time 
may be considered ``massive.''
    Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines 
``relatively short period'' as normally being the period beginning on 
the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 
and ending at least three months later. The regulations also provide, 
however, that if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or 
producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning 
of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may 
consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.
    In determining whether the above criteria have been satisfied, we 
examined: (1) The evidence presented in the petition; (2) recent import 
statistics released by the Census Bureau after the initiation of the 
LTFV investigation; and (3) the ITC preliminary injury determination.

History of Dumping and Importer Knowledge

    We are not aware of any existing antidumping order in any country 
on rebar from Ukraine and Moldova. For

[[Page 70697]]

this reason, we do not find a history of dumping from those countries 
pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i). However, the Department has looked 
to the second criterion for determining knowledge of dumping.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling rebar at LTFV, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the 
Act, the Department's normal practice is to consider margins of 25 
percent or more sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. See 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-tto-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China, 
62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997). In these instant cases, given that 
we have not yet made a preliminary finding of dumping, the most 
reasonable source of information concerning knowledge of dumping is the 
petition itself. In the petitions, the petitioner calculated estimated 
dumping margins of 41.69 percent for Ukraine and 59.98 percent for 
Moldova. Since these estimated dumping margins exceed the 25 percent 
threshold, we have preliminarily imputed knowledge of dumping to 
importers, exporters, or producers of subject merchandise from Ukraine 
and Moldova. See the Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determinations 
Memorandum.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, under section 
733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally will look to the 
preliminary injury determination of the ITC. If the ITC finds a 
reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. 
industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists 
to impute importer knowledge that there was likely to be material 
injury by reason of dumped imports. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 (November 20, 1997). In these 
instant cases, the ITC found that a reasonable indication of present 
material injury due to dumping exists for imports of rebar from Ukraine 
and Moldova. See ITC's Preliminary Determinations, August 14, 2000, 
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-872-883. Therefore, we preliminarily find 
that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that importers 
knew or should have known that dumped imports of rebar from Ukraine and 
Moldova were likely to cause material injury.

Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act, the Department normally compares the import volume of the subject 
merchandise for three months immediately preceding the filing of the 
petition (i.e., the base period), and three months following the filing 
of the petition (i.e., the comparison period). However, as stated in 
section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations, if the Secretary 
finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at 
some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding 
was likely, then the Secretary may consider a time period of not less 
than three months from that earlier time. Imports normally will be 
considered massive when imports during the comparison period have 
increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base 
period.
    In this case, the petitioner argues that importers, exporters, or 
producers of rebar from Ukraine and Moldova had reason to believe that 
an antidumping proceeding was likely before the filing of the petition. 
In determining whether imports from Ukraine and Moldova have been 
massive, the petitioner also alleges that rebar is a product for which 
demand is subject to seasonal shifts and that it is appropriate to use 
a seasonal methodology to examine whether an import surge occurred with 
respect to the above-referenced countries.
    Based upon information contained in the petition, we found that 
press reports and published statements were sufficient to establish 
that, by December 1999, importers, exporters, and foreign producers 
knew or should have known that a proceeding was likely concerning rebar 
from Ukraine and Moldova. We disagree with the petitioner's analysis of 
massive imports based on seasonality because the evidence on the record 
does not substantiate that imports of rebar are subject to seasonal 
shifts. See Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determinations 
Memorandum for detailed discussion of this issue. Accordingly, we 
examined the increase in import volumes from May 1999 through December 
1999 (the base period), as compared to the import volume during January 
2000 through August 2000 (the comparison period), and found that 
imports of rebar from Ukraine and Moldova increased by 69.30 percent 
and 22.08 percent, respectively. See the Critical Circumstances 
Preliminary Determinations Memorandum. Therefore, pursuant to section 
733(e) of the Act and section 351.206(h) of the Department's 
regulations, we preliminarily determine that there have been massive 
imports of rebar from Ukraine and Moldova over a relatively short time.

Conclusion

    Given the above-referenced analysis, we preliminarily determine 
that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist for imports of rebar from Ukraine and Moldova.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, if the Department 
issues affirmative preliminary determinations of sales at LTFV in the 
investigations with respect to Ukraine and Moldova, the Department, at 
that time, will direct the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of rebar from Ukraine and Moldova that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to 
the date of publication in the Federal Register of our preliminary 
determinations of sales at LTFV. The Customs Service shall require a 
cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary 
dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determinations of sales at 
LTFV published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation 
will remain in effect until further notice.

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for Ukraine and Moldova when we make our final 
determinations regarding sales at LTFV in those investigations, which 
will be 75 days (unless extended) after the preliminary LTFV 
determinations.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. This notice is issued and published pursuant 
to section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: November 17, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-30144 Filed 11-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P