[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7620-7626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-820, A-428-830, A-475-829, A-580-847, A-583-836, A-412-822]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: 
Stainless Steel Bar From France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, and the 
United Kingdom

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

ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith (France, Korea, and the 
United Kingdom) at (202) 482-1766, Jarrod Goldfeder (Italy) at (202) 
482-0189, Ryan Langan (Taiwan) at (202) 482-1279, and Craig Matney 
(Germany) at (202) 482-1778, 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 of Commerce's 
(``the Department's'') regulations are references to the provisions 
codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).

The Petitions

    On December 28, 2000, the Department received petitions filed in 
proper form by Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals, 
Electralloy Corp., Empire Specialty Steel Inc., Slater Steels Corp., 
and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, 
``the petitioners''). The Department received supplemental information 
to the petitions on January 8, 9, and 12, 2001.
    In accordance with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the petitioners 
allege that imports of stainless steel bar from France, Germany, Italy, 
Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom are, 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, or 
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the 
antidumping investigations that they are requesting the Department to 
initiate. See infra, ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition.''

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the term ``stainless steel 
bar'' includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that 
have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or 
otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross 
section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of 
circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, 
octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-
finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight 
lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and 
cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, 
grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.
    Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless 
steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., 
cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have 
a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or 
more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 
least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless 
steel sheet, strip or plate, wire (i.e., cold-formed products in coils, 
of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do 
not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, 
shapes and sections.
    The stainless steel bar subject to these investigations is 
currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 
7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 
7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners and Customs Service (see Memorandum to Paula Ilardi, 
``Scope Language for Stainless Steel Bar Petitions,'' dated January 9, 
2001) to ensure that the scope in the petitions accurately reflects the 
products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, 
as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations 
(Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication 
of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of

[[Page 7621]]

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 the Department's industry support determination, which is 
to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on 
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the 
petition. 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. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) provides 
that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers 
or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production 
of the domestic like product, the Department shall either poll the 
industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is 
support for the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a 
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.
    We reviewed the description of the domestic like product presented 
in the petitions with Customs and the ITC. Based upon our review of the 
petitioners' claims, we concur that there is a single domestic like 
product, which is defined in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section 
above. Moreover, the Department has determined that the petitions 
contain adequate evidence of industry support and, therefore, polling 
is unnecessary. See Import Administration Antidumping Investigations 
Initiation Checklist, Industry Support section, January 17, 2001 
(hereafter, the ``Initiation Checklist''), on file in the Central 
Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
    The Department received no opposition to the petitions. For all 
countries, the petitioners established industry support representing 
over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product. 
Accordingly, we determine that these petitions are filed on behalf of 
the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the 
Act.

Initiation Standard for Cost Investigations

    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the petitioners provided 
information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales in the home markets of France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, and 
the United Kingdom were made at prices below the cost of production 
(``COP'') and, accordingly, requested that the Department conduct 
country-wide sales-below-COP investigations in connection with these 
investigations. The Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA''), 
submitted to the Congress in connection with the interpretation and 
application of the URAA, states that an allegation of sales below COP 
need not be specific to individual exporters or producers. SAA, H.R. 
Doc. No. 316 at 833 (1994). The SAA, at 833, states that ``Commerce 
will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a 
foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers allegations of 
sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis for purposes of 
initiating an antidumping investigation.''
    Further, the SAA provides that new section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act 
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect'' that below-cost sales have occurred before 
initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an 
interested party provides specific factual information on costs and 
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign 
market in question are at below-cost prices. Id. We have analyzed the 
country-specific allegations as described below.

Export Price (``EP''), Constructed Export Price (``CEP''), and Normal 
Value (``NV'')

    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. A more detailed description of these 
allegations is provided 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, as 
appropriate.

France

CEP

    The petitioners identified four companies that produce subject 
merchandise in France. The petitioners provided pricing and cost 
information for one of these four producers: Ugine Savoie Imphy 
Produits Longs (``USI''). The petitioners state that these four 
producers account for the majority of all stainless steel bar 
production in France, and that USI accounts for all of the exports of 
subject merchandise to the United States. According to the petitioners, 
USI sells subject merchandise through its U.S. affiliate, Ugine 
Stainless & Alloys Inc. (``US&A''), to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers. 
For USI, the petitioners based CEP on C.I.F. delivered offers for sale 
of USI stainless steel bar from its affiliated U.S. distributor, which 
were obtained from U.S. industry sources. To calculate CEP, the 
petitioners deducted a distributor mark-up, movement expenses (ocean 
freight and insurance, U.S. import duty, U.S. port fees, and U.S. and 
foreign inland freight), and U.S. direct (i.e., credit) and indirect 
selling expenses (i.e., CEP selling expenses and inventory

[[Page 7622]]

carrying costs) from the price quotes. The information supporting these 
deductions was obtained from publicly available data, foreign market 
research, and U.S. industry sources (see Initiation Checklist).

NV

Price-to-Price Comparisons
    The petitioners obtained home market delivered offers for sale of 
stainless steel bar by USI to unaffiliated home-market customers as a 
result of foreign market research. To calculate NV, the petitioners 
deducted home market freight and imputed credit expenses for 
comparisons to CEP.
    The information supporting these deductions was obtained from 
publicly available data and foreign market research. The petitioners 
conservatively did not adjust the prices for differences in packing 
costs, stating that packing expenses for export would be the same or 
greater than home market packing expenses. See Initiation Checklist. 
For comparisons to CEP, the petitioners converted the net home market 
prices to U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale.
    Based on the petitioners' price-to-price comparisons, in accordance 
with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for 
stainless steel bar from France range from 6.55 to 20.04 percent.
Price-to-Constructed Value (``CV'') Comparisons
    The petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of stainless steel bar in the 
home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of cost of 
manufacture (``COM''), selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') 
expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated COM based on their 
own production experience, adjusted for known differences between costs 
incurred to produce stainless steel bar in the United States and France 
using publicly available data and foreign market research. To calculate 
SG&A, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in a French 
company's unconsolidated 1999 financial statements. For interest 
expense, the petitioners used the French company's consolidated 1999 
financial statements. Based upon a comparison of the prices of the 
foreign like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the 
product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is 
initiating a country-wide cost investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales in France on CV. The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same COM, depreciation, SG&A and interest 
expense figures used to compute French home market costs. Consistent 
with 773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for 
profit. For profit, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in a 
French steel producer's unconsolidated 1999 financial statements. For 
comparisons to CEP, the petitioners also deducted from CV home market 
credit expenses.
    Based upon the petitioners' CV-to-CEP comparisons, the estimated 
dumping margins range from 45.94 to 71.83 percent.

Germany

EP and CEP

    The petitioners identified eleven companies that produce subject 
merchandise in Germany. The petitioners provided pricing and cost 
information for four of these eleven producers: Walzwerke Einsal GmbH 
(``Einsal''), Edelstahl Witten-Krefeld GmbH (``EWK''), BGH Edelstahl 
Seigen GmbH and BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH (``BGH''), and Krupp 
Edelstahlprofile GmbH (``KEP''). The petitioners state that these four 
producers account for a majority of all stainless steel bar production 
in Germany, and substantially all of the subject merchandise exported 
to the United States from Germany. According to the petitioners, Einsal 
sells subject merchandise through unaffiliated distributors in the 
United States, while EWK, BGH and KEP sell subject merchandise through 
affiliated U.S. distributors. For Einsal, the petitioners based EP on 
actual sales of Einsal stainless steel bar from an unaffiliated U.S. 
distributor. To calculate EP, the petitioners deducted a distributor's 
gross margin (i.e., distributor mark-up) and movement expenses (foreign 
inland freight, ocean freight and insurance, U.S. import duty, U.S. 
port fees, and U.S. inland freight) from the price quote. For EWK, KEP 
and BGH, the petitioners based CEP on a number of offers for sale for 
subject merchandise by these companies' respective affiliated U.S. 
resellers. To calculate CEP, the petitioners deducted from the price 
quotes, in addition to the movement expenses list above (where 
applicable), U.S. direct (i.e., credit) and indirect selling expenses 
(i.e., CEP selling expenses and inventory carrying costs). See 
Initiation Checklist and Germany Calculation memorandum. Finally, the 
petitioners did not use all of the U.S. price quotes provided by its 
industry sources for BGH and Einsal. For these U.S. price quotes, we 
examined the home market price quotes for potential product matches. 
Where we found a similar product that, after adjusting the respective 
prices, yielded a more conservative margin, we have included these 
margins in the range of estimated margins. See Initiation Checklist and 
Germany Calculation memorandum.

NV

Price-to-Price Comparisons
    The petitioners obtained home market offers for sale of stainless 
steel bar by Einsal, EWK, KEP and BGH to unaffiliated distributors as a 
result of foreign market research. To calculate NV, the petitioners 
deducted home market freight and imputed credit expenses and, for 
comparisons to EP, added U.S. imputed credit expenses. The petitioners 
conservatively did not adjust the prices for differences in packing 
costs, stating that packing expenses for export would be the same or 
greater than home market packing expenses. For comparisons to EP/CEP, 
the petitioners converted the net home market prices to U.S. dollars 
based on the exchange rate in effect on the date of the U.S. sale.
    Based on EP/CEP price-to-price comparisons, calculated in 
accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for stainless steel bar from Germany range from zero to 53.62 
percent.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
    Petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of stainless steel bar in the 
home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A 
expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated COM based on their 
own production experience, adjusted for known differences between costs 
incurred to produce stainless steel bar in the United States and 
Germany using publicly available data and foreign

[[Page 7623]]

market research. To calculate SG&A, the petitioners relied upon amounts 
reported in each named German company's most recently available 
unconsolidated financial statements. For interest expense, the 
petitioners used each named German company's consolidated 1999 
financial statements. Based upon a comparison of the prices of the 
foreign like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the 
product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is 
initiating a country-wide cost investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales in Germany on CV. The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A and interest expense figures 
used to compute German home market costs. Consistent with 773(e)(2) of 
the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for profit. For 
profit, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in a German steel 
producer's unconsolidated 1999 financial statements. For comparisons to 
EP/CEP, the petitioners made adjustments to CV for credit expenses.
    Based upon the comparison of CV to EP, or CEP, the petitioners 
calculated estimated dumping margins ranging from 62.48 to 228.66 
percent.

Italy

EP and CEP

    The petitioners identified ten companies that produce subject 
merchandise in Italy. The petitioners provided pricing and cost 
information for four of these ten producers: Cogne Acciai Speciali Srl 
(``Cogne''), Acciaiera Foroni SpA (``Foroni''), Italfond, and 
Acciaierie Valbruna Srl (``Valbruna''). The petitioners state that 
these four producers account for the majority of all stainless steel 
bar production in Italy and substantially all of the stainless steel 
bar products exported to the United States from Italy. According to the 
petitioners, Italfond made direct sales of the subject merchandise to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers, while Valbruna, Cogne, and Foroni sell 
subject merchandise through their U.S. subsidiaries, who in turn sell 
stainless steel bar to unaffiliated U.S. customers. For Italfond, the 
petitioners based EP on offers for sale of stainless steel bar by 
Italfond to unaffiliated U.S. customers. To calculate EP, which was 
based on CIF U.S. prices of stainless steel bar sold through one or 
more unaffiliated distributors, the petitioners deducted a 
distributor's gross margin (i.e., distributor mark-up) and movement 
expenses (foreign inland freight, ocean freight and insurance, U.S. 
import duty, U.S. port fees, and U.S. inland freight) from the price 
quote. For Valbruna, Cogne, and Foroni, the petitioners based CEP on a 
number of offers for sale of subject merchandise through these 
companies' respective affiliated U.S. subsidiaries. To calculate CEP, 
which was based on CIF, FOB warehouse, or FOB U.S. port of entry prices 
from these companies through their U.S. subsidiaries, the petitioners 
deducted from the price quotes, in addition to the movement expenses 
listed above (where applicable), U.S. direct (i.e., credit) and 
indirect selling expenses (i.e., CEP selling expenses and inventory 
carrying costs). Finally, the petitioners did not use all of the U.S. 
price quotes provided by its industry sources for Valbruna. For these 
U.S. price quotes, we examined the home market price quotes for 
potential product matches. Where we found a similar product that, after 
adjusting the respective prices, yielded a more conservative margin, we 
have included these margins in the range of estimated margins.

NV

Price-to-Price Comparisons
    The petitioners provided home-market prices for Valbruna, Cogne, 
Foroni, and Italfond based on several grades and sizes of stainless 
steel bar sold to unaffiliated home-market customers, which were 
obtained from foreign market research. These products are comparable to 
the products exported to the United States which served as the basis 
for EP or CEP. The prices the petitioners used in the calculation of NV 
were delivered prices, exclusive of VAT taxes. To calculate NV, the 
petitioners deducted foreign inland freight, which was also obtained 
from foreign market research. See Initiation Checklist. To calculate 
NV, the petitioners deducted home market freight and imputed credit 
expenses and, for comparisons to EP, added U.S. imputed credit 
expenses. The petitioners conservatively did not adjust the prices for 
differences in packing costs, stating that packing expenses for export 
would be the same or greater than home market packing expenses. For 
comparisons to EP/CEP, the petitioners converted the net home market 
prices to U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate in effect as of the 
date of the U.S. sale.
    Based on EP/CEP price-to-price comparisons, calculated in 
accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for stainless steel bar from Italy range from zero to 33.00 
percent.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
    Petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of stainless steel bar in the 
home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, 
SG&A expenses (which include financial expenses), and packing. The 
petitioners calculated COM based on their own production experience, 
adjusted for known differences between costs incurred to produce 
stainless steel bar in the United States and Italy using publicly 
available data and foreign market research. To calculate SG&A and 
financial expenses, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in 
each of the four Italian producers' 1999 financial statements. Based 
upon the comparison of the prices of the foreign like product in the 
home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product 
were made below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) 
of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide 
cost investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales in Italy on CV. The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A and financial expenses they used 
to compute Italian home-market costs. Consistent with section 773(e)(2) 
of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for profit. For 
profit, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in each of the 
four Italian producers' 1999 financial statements. For comparisons to 
EP/CEP, the petitioners made adjustments to CV for credit expenses.
    Based upon the comparison of CV to EP, or CEP, the petitioners 
calculated estimated dumping margins ranging from 17.04 to 132.57 
percent.

Korea

EP

    The petitioners identified eight companies that produce subject 
merchandise in Korea. The petitioners provided pricing and cost 
information for three of these eight producers: Changwon Speciality 
Steel Co., Ltd. (``Changwon''), Dongbang Special Steel Co., Ltd. 
(``Dongbang''), and Bae Myung

[[Page 7624]]

Metal Company, Ltd. (``Bae Myung''). The petitioners state that these 
three producers account for a majority of all stainless steel bar 
production in Korea, and substantially all of the subject merchandise 
exported to the United States from Korea. According to the petitioners, 
Changwon, Dongbang, and Bae Myung sell subject merchandise through 
unaffiliated distributors in the United States. On a company-specific 
basis, the petitioners based EP on C.I.F. delivered offers for sale for 
stainless steel bar from unaffiliated U.S. distributors, which were 
obtained from U.S. industry sources. To calculate EP, the petitioners 
deducted a distributor mark-up and movement expenses (ocean freight, 
insurance, U.S. import duty and port fees, and U.S. and foreign inland 
freight). The information supporting these deductions was obtained from 
publicly available data, foreign market research and U.S. industry 
sources. Finally, the petitioners did not use all of the U.S. price 
quotes provided by its industry sources. For these U.S. price quotes, 
we examined the home market price quotes for potential product matches. 
Where we found a similar product that, after adjusting the respective 
prices, yielded a more conservative margin, we have included these 
margins in the range of estimated margins.

NV

Price-to-Price Comparisons
    The petitioners obtained home market delivered offers for sale of 
stainless steel bar by Changwon, Dongbang, and Bae Myung to 
unaffiliated distributors as a result of foreign market research. To 
calculate NV, the petitioners deducted home market freight and imputed 
credit expenses and added U.S. credit expenses. The information 
supporting these deductions and adjustments was obtained from publicly 
available data and foreign market research. The petitioners 
conservatively did not adjust the prices for differences in packing 
costs, stating that packing expenses for export would be the same or 
greater than home market packing expenses. See Initiation Checklist. 
For comparisons to EP, the petitioners converted the net home market 
prices to U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale.
    Based on the petitioners' price-to-price comparisons and the 
Department's recalculations to account for the highest U.S. prices 
obtained by the petitioners, in accordance with section 773(a) of the 
Act, the estimated dumping margins for stainless steel bar from Korea 
range from zero to 61.07 percent.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
    The petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of stainless steel bar in the 
home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A 
expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated COM based on their 
own production experience, adjusted for known differences between costs 
incurred to produce stainless steel bar in the United States and Korea 
using publicly available data and foreign market research. To calculate 
SG&A and interest expenses, the petitioners relied upon amounts 
reported in the Korean companies' financial statements. Based upon a 
comparison of the prices of the foreign like product in the home market 
to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made 
below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost 
investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales of stainless steel bar made by 
Changwon, Dongbang and Bae Myung on CV. The petitioners calculated CV 
using the same figures for COM, SG&A expenses, and packing costs they 
used to compute Korean home-market costs. Consistent with section 
773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for 
profit. For profit, the petitioners relied upon amounts reported in a 
Korean steel producer's unconsolidated 1999 financial statements. For 
comparisons to EP, the petitioners also made a COS adjustment to CV for 
differences in credit expenses between the U.S. and Korean markets.
    Based upon the petitioners' CV-to-EP comparisons, the petitioners 
calculated estimated dumping margins ranging from 25.72 to 122.18 
percent.

Taiwan

EP

    The petitioners identified two companies that produce subject 
merchandise in Taiwan: Walsin Lihwa (``Walsin'') and Gloria Metals 
Technology (``GMT''). The petitioners provided pricing information for 
both producers and stated that they are the only producers of stainless 
steel bar in Taiwan that export subject merchandise to the United 
States. According to the petitioners, Walsin and GMT sell subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. For Walsin 
and GMT, the petitioners based EP on offers for sale of Walsin and GMT 
stainless steel bar through unaffiliated U.S. distributors. To 
calculate EP, the petitioners deducted a distributor's mark-up (where 
applicable) and movement expenses (foreign inland freight, 
international freight and insurance, U.S. import duty, U.S. port fees, 
and U.S. inland freight) from the price quotes.
    Based on information contained in the petition and supplements to 
the petition, we made adjustments to the distributor mark-up 
calculations. See Initiation Checklist and Taiwan Calculation 
memorandum.

NV

Price-to-Price Comparisons
    The petitioners obtained information on prices for home market 
sales of stainless steel bar from a foreign market researcher. 
Petitioners obtained prices for actual recent sales or offers for sale 
to unaffiliated customers in Taiwan from Walsin and GMT. To calculate 
NV, the petitioners deducted home market imputed credit from the price 
quotes and added U.S. imputed credit to the price quotes. The 
petitioners conservatively did not adjust the prices for differences in 
packing costs, stating that packing expenses for export would be the 
same or greater than home market packing expenses.
    Based on price-to-price comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in 
accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping 
margins for stainless steel bar from Taiwan range from 6.83 to 15.83 
percent.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
    Petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of stainless steel bar in the 
home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A 
expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated COMs for a variety of 
grades and sizes of stainless steel bar based on their own production 
experience, adjusted for known differences between costs incurred to 
produce stainless steel bar in the United States and Taiwan using 
publicly available data and foreign market research. The petitioners

[[Page 7625]]

calculated SG&A and interest expense using information contained in 
Walsin's 1999 financial statements. Based upon a comparison of the 
prices of the foreign like product in the home market to the calculated 
COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales in Taiwan on CV. The petitioners 
calculated CV using the same COM, depreciation, SG&A and interest 
expense figures used to compute Taiwan home market costs. Consistent 
with 773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for 
profit. For profit, consistent with their SG&A calculations, the 
petitioners relied upon amounts reported in Walsin's 1999 financial 
statements. The petitioners also made a COS adjustment to CV for 
differences in credit expenses between the U.S. and Taiwan markets.
    Based upon the comparisons of CV to EP, the petitioners calculated 
estimated dumping margins ranging from 18.83 to 68.55 percent.

United Kingdom

EP and CEP

    The petitioners identified four companies that produce subject 
merchandise in the United Kingdom (``UK''). The petitioners provided 
pricing and cost information for two of these four producers: Corus 
Engineering Steels (``CES'') and Crownridge Stainless Steel, Ltd. 
(``Crownridge''). The petitioners state that these four producers 
account for the majority of all stainless steel bar production in the 
UK, and that CES and Crownridge account for substantially all of the 
subject merchandise exported to the United States from the UK. 
According to the petitioners, Crownridge sells subject merchandise 
through unaffiliated distributors in the United States, while CES sells 
subject merchandise through an affiliated U.S. distributor.
    For Crownridge, the petitioners based EP on C.I.F. delivered offers 
for sale for Crownridge stainless steel bar through an unaffiliated 
U.S. distributor, which were obtained from U.S. industry sources. To 
calculate EP, the petitioners deducted a distributor mark-up and 
movement expenses (foreign inland freight, ocean freight and insurance, 
U.S. import duty and port fees, and U.S. inland freight) from the price 
quotes. The information supporting these deductions was obtained from 
publicly available data, foreign market research and U.S. industry 
sources.
    For CES, the petitioners based CEP on C.I.F. delivered offers for 
sale of stainless steel bar merchandise by its affiliated U.S. 
reseller, which were also obtained from U.S. industry sources. To 
calculate CEP, the petitioners deducted from these price quotes the 
movement expenses mentioned above, U.S. direct (i.e., credit) and 
indirect selling expenses (i.e., CEP selling expenses and inventory 
carrying costs). The information supporting these deductions was also 
obtained from publicly available data, foreign market research and U.S. 
industry sources (see Initiation Checklist).

NV

Price-To-Price Comparisons
    The petitioners obtained home market delivered offers for sale of 
stainless steel bar from Crownridge and CES to unaffiliated 
distributors as a result of foreign market research. However, based on 
the data in the petition, Crownridge's home market (and third country) 
sales volumes are less than five percent of its U.S. sales volume. 
Therefore, we did not rely on the petitioners' price-to-price 
comparisons with respect to Crownridge. To calculate NV based on CES' 
home market prices, the petitioners deducted home market freight and 
imputed credit expenses for comparisons to CEP. The information 
supporting these deductions was obtained from publicly available data 
and foreign market research. The petitioners conservatively did not 
adjust the prices for differences in packing costs, stating that 
packing expenses for export would be the same or greater than home 
market packing expenses. See Initiation Checklist. For comparisons to 
CEP, the petitioners converted the net home market prices to U.S. 
dollars based on the exchange rate in effect on the date of the U.S. 
sale.
    Based on the petitioners' price-to-price comparisons for CES, in 
accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin 
for stainless steel bar from the UK is 4.88 percent.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
    The petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of stainless steel bar in the 
home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the 
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A 
expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated COM based on their 
own production experience, adjusted for known differences between costs 
incurred to produce stainless steel bar in the United States and the UK 
using publicly available data and foreign market research. To calculate 
SG&A and interest expenses, the petitioners relied upon amounts 
reported in the UK companies' financial statements. Based upon a 
comparison of CES' prices of the foreign like product in the home 
market to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made 
below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost 
investigation.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners also based NV for sales of stainless steel bar made by CES 
and Crownridge on CV. The petitioners calculated CV using the same 
figures for COM, SG&A expenses, and packing costs they used to compute 
UK home market costs. Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, the 
petitioners included in CV an amount for profit. For profit, the 
petitioners relied upon amounts reported in the UK steel producers' 
unconsolidated 1999 financial statements. For comparisons to EP/CEP, 
the petitioners made adjustments to CV for credit expenses.
    Based upon the petitioners' CV-to-CEP and CV-to-EP comparisons, the 
estimated dumping margins range from 21.93 to 125.77 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of stainless steel bar from France, Germany, 
Italy, Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom 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. The petitioners contend that the industry's 
injured condition is evident in the declining trends in net operating 
income, net sales volume and value, profit to sales ratios, and 
capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and causation are 
supported by relevant

[[Page 7626]]

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).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petitions on stainless steel bar, 
we have found that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the 
Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to 
determine whether imports of stainless steel bar from France, Germany, 
Italy, Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this 
deadline is extended pursuant to section 733(b)(1)(A), 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 the governments of France, Germany, Italy, Korea, 
Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. We will attempt to provide a copy of 
the public version of each petition to each exporter named in the 
petitions, as provided for under section 351.203(c)(2) of the 
Department's regulations.

ITC 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 February 12, 2001 whether 
there is a reasonable indication that imports of stainless steel bar 
from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom 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 issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: January 7, 2001.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-2057 Filed 1-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P