[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8324-8329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2518]



[[Page 8323]]

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

Part III





Department of Commerce





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



International Trade Administration



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



Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars; 
Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 8324]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-449-804]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Latvia

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keir Whitson or Gabriel Adler at (202) 
482-1777 or (202) 482-3813, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, 
Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

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 Department of Commerce (Department) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (April 
2000).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that steel concrete reinforcing bars 
(rebar) from Latvia are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 
733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the 
Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on July 18, 2000.\1\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Austria, Belarus, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia, 
Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland, the Republic of Korea, 
the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Venezuela, 65 FR 45754 (July 25, 
2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of this investigation, 
the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner in these investigations is the Rebar Trade 
Action Coalition (RTAC), and its individual members, AmeriSteel, 
Auburn Steel Co., Inc., Birmingham Steel Corp., Border Steel, Inc., 
Marion Steel Company, Riverview Steel, and Nucor Steel and CMC Steel 
Group. (Auburn Steel was not a petitioner in the Indonesia case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 14, 2000, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that a regional industry in the United States is materially 
injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from 
Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine 
of certain steel concrete reinforcing bars. See Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Austria, Belarus, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, 
Latvia, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and Venezuela, 65 FR 51329 
(August 23, 2000). With respect to subject imports from Austria, 
Russia, and Venezuela, the ITC determined that imports from these 
countries during the period of investigation (POI) were negligible and, 
therefore, these investigations were terminated. The ITC also 
determined that there is no reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of subject imports from Japan. Id.
    On August 18, 2000, the Department issued antidumping 
questionnaires to the only producer/exporter of subject merchandise in 
Latvia, Liepajas Metalurgs (LM).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (This section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of 
production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed 
value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. In NME cases, 
Section D requests information on factors of production. Section E 
requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of the date of initiation of this investigation, Latvia was 
still considered a non-market economy (NME) country. On August 24, 
2000, the Department received a letter from Latvia's Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs requesting that the Department revoke the NME status of 
Latvia under section 771(18)(A) of the Act. After a thorough 
examination of all relevant information available to the Department, we 
have revoked Latvia's NME status under section 771(18)(A) of the Act. 
See Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga to Troy H. Cribb: Non-Market Economy 
Status Revocation (January 12, 2001). This preliminary determination is 
therefore based on information contained in the market economy 
questionnaire responses submitted by LM.
    On November 9, 2000, the petitioner requested a postponement of the 
preliminary determinations in all concurrent rebar investigations. On 
November 21, 2000, the Department published a Federal Register notice 
postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination until January 
16, 2001. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty 
Determinations: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, 
Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, the People's Republic of China, Poland, the 
Republic of Korea, and Ukraine, 65 FR 69909 (November 21, 2000).

Postponement of the Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On January 5, 2001, LM requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until 135 days after the 
publication of the preliminary determination. LM made a separate 
request to extend the provisional measures to not more than six months. 
Accordingly, since we have made an affirmative preliminary 
determination, and LM is the sole producer of the subject merchandise 
in Latvia, we have postponed the final determination for Latvia until 
not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000. This period 
corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (i.e., June 2000).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is all 
rebar sold in

[[Page 8325]]

straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 7214.20.00 or 
any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds 
(i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further 
processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Critical Circumstances

    In the petition filed on June 28, 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 Latvia. On 
July 18, 2000, concurrent with the initiations of the LTFV 
investigation on imports of rebar from Latvia, the Department announced 
its intention to investigate the petitioner's allegation that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of rebar from Latvia. 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 Latvia.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
critical circumstances exist, if: (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 or more during the ``relatively short period'' 
of time may be considered ``massive.''
    With respect section to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we do 
not find that there is a history of dumping and material injury by 
reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the 
subject merchandise, inasmuch as no country has issued a finding of 
dumping against Latvian rebar. Further, with respect to section 
733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the magnitude of the dumping margins found 
in this preliminary determination is insufficient to conclude that 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. As such, we are issuing a 
preliminary negative critical circumstances determination.
    Although unnecessary in this case, we have also examined whether 
imports have been massive over a ``relatively short period'' of time, 
pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. To do so, 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 Latvia had reason to believe that an 
antidumping proceeding was likely before the filing of the petition. 
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 
Latvia. As a result, the Department has considered whether there have 
been massive imports after that time based on a comparison of periods 
immediately preceding and following the end of December 1999. See 
Memorandum from Gary Taverman to Holly A. Kuga, Antidumping Duty 
Investigations of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Latvia--
Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances (Critical 
Circumstances Preliminary Determination Memorandum), dated January 16, 
2001.
    In order to determine whether imports from Latvia have been 
massive, the Department requested that LM provide its shipment data for 
the last three years. Based on our analysis of the shipment data 
reported, because imports have decreased during the comparison period, 
we preliminarily find that the criterion under section 733(e)(1)(B) of 
the Act has not been met, i.e., there have not been massive imports of 
rebar from LM over a relatively short time. See Critical Circumstances 
Preliminary Determination Memorandum. For this reason, we preliminarily 
determine that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of rebar 
produced by LM.
    Regarding the ``all others'' category, it is the Department's 
practice to conduct its critical circumstances analysis of companies in 
this category based on the experience of the investigated companies. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey (Rebar from 
Turkey), 62 FR 9737, 9741 (March 4, 1997) (the Department found that 
critical circumstances existed for the majority of the companies 
investigated, and therefore concluded that critical circumstances also 
existed for companies covered by the ``all others'' rate). However, the 
Department does not automatically extend a critical circumstances 
determination to companies covered by the ``all others'' rate. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan, 64 FR 30574, 30585 
(June 8, 1999) (Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Japan). Instead, 
the Department may consider the traditional critical circumstances 
criteria with respect to the companies covered by the ``all others'' 
rate.
    In determining whether imports from the ``all others'' category 
have been massive, the Department followed its normal practice of 
conducting its critical circumstances analysis of companies in this 
category based on the experience of the investigated companies. In this 
case, since we are unaware of any other Latvian rebar producers, it is 
appropriate to extend the experience of LM to the ``all others'' 
category. For this reason, we determine that the second criterion under 
section 733(e)(1) of the Act has not been met and that there have not 
been massive imports of rebar from the ``all others'' category over a 
relatively short time. Therefore, pursuant to section 733(e) of the Act 
and section 351.206(h) of the Department's regulations, we

[[Page 8326]]

preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist for imports 
of rebar produced by the ``all others'' category.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act permits us to investigate either (1) a sample of exporters, 
producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on 
the information available at the time of selection, or (2) exporters 
and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject 
merchandise that can reasonably be examined. LM is the only known 
producer/exporter of subject merchandise in Latvia.

Product Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by 
the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of Investigation 
section, above, and sold in the comparison market during the POI are 
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on three 
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-
market sales of the foreign like product: type of steel, yield 
strength, and size. These characteristics have been weighted by the 
Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the comparison market to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Latvia were made in the 
United States at LTFV, we compared the export price (EP) to the normal 
value (NV), as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections 
of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we calculated weighted-average EPs and, subsequently, compared these to 
weighted-average home market or third-country prices, as appropriate.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we calculated an EP as defined 
in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) 
of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is 
first sold by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, before the 
date of importation, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States. We calculated EP based on the packed, delivered, ex-
factory prices charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States prior to importation. We made deductions from the 
starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include foreign movement expense (inland 
freight) and foreign brokerage and handling.
    We note that, as explained below, we did not calculate dumping 
margins for certain sales by LM to an affiliated customer based on the 
reported databases. Instead, in accordance with section 776(a) of the 
Act, we preliminarily relied on adverse facts available in calculating 
the dumping margins for the transactions in question.
    On December 1, 2000, the Department issued a memorandum stating 
that, for purposes of this investigation, it had found LM to be 
affiliated with one of its customers. See Memorandum from Gabriel Adler 
to Gary Taverman: Antidumping Investigation of Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Latvia; Affiliation (December 1, 2000). On 
December 4, 2000, the Department issued a supplemental sales 
questionnaire to LM requesting, in part, that LM provide the downstream 
sales data for all sales made during the POI by its affiliated customer 
to unaffiliated parties in the United States. On December 6, 2000, LM 
stated that, while it did not view itself as affiliated with the 
customer in question, it had requested that its customer provide 
downstream sales data for its sales made to the United States during 
the POI. LM further stated that the affiliate was not willing to 
provide the Department with the requested information. On December 8, 
2000, LM again stated that it could not provide this data to the 
Department.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the 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 and the 
Commission shall, subject to section 782(d) and (e) of the Act, use the 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination 
under this title.'' The statute requires that certain conditions be met 
before the Department may resort to the facts otherwise available. 
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department 
may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original 
and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Briefly, section 782(e) 
provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, and 
the Department can use the information without undue difficulties, the 
statute requires it to do so.
    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse 
inference, if the Department finds that an interested party failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the 
request for information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 
and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997). 
Finally, section 776(b) states that an adverse inference may include 
reliance on information derived from the petition. See also Statement 
of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 
at 870 (1994).
    While LM has been generally cooperative over the course of this 
antidumping proceeding, it has not been cooperative in responding to 
the Department's specific request for downstream sales data. As a 
result, we are applying the facts otherwise available for all sales 
made to the United States through the affiliate in question. Moreover, 
we are making an adverse inference with respect to this determination. 
Specifically, for sales made through this affiliated customer, we have 
assigned a margin calculated on the basis of the lowest net U.S. price

[[Page 8327]]

reported for any sale not involving the affiliate, and the highest 
normal value calculated for any product reported by the respondent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because we have relied on the respondent's own sales data as 
facts available, it is not necessary to corroborate such information 
under section 776(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, since most U.S. sales were made through the affiliate 
in question, the use of facts otherwise available extends to the 
majority of the respondent's U.S. sales. In reaching this preliminary 
determination, we are mindful that a respondent's failure to report the 
appropriate sales prices for the majority of U.S. sales might warrant 
wholesale rejection of the submitted responses, and reliance entirely 
on the facts otherwise available. In view of the specific circumstances 
presented in this case, however, we preliminarily believe at this time 
that it is more appropriate to base the dumping margins in part on that 
portion of the reported sales database that is not directly in question 
as a result of the respondent's omission. Given the nature of control 
between LM and its affiliate (where the affiliate has some measure of 
control over LM, but LM lacks control over its affiliate), the failure 
of the affiliate to provide requested sales data, while warranting an 
adverse inference with respect to those sales, does not necessarily 
impugn LM's compliance in reporting sales to other customers. While the 
factors above do not excuse the affiliate's failure to submit the 
requested sales information, they do provide a context in which it is 
appropriate to limit the use of adverse facts available to that 
specific omission.

Normal Value for Market Economy Analysis

A. Selection of Comparison Markets for Market Economy Countries
    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP or CEP. The 
statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be 
considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the 
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States.
    For the Latvia case, we found that LM does not have a viable home 
market for sales of rebar. Therefore, the respondent submitted data for 
sales to Germany, its largest third-country market, for purposes of the 
calculation of NV.
    In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Third-Country Market Prices section below.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
    On October 26, 2000, the petitioner made a sales below cost 
allegation against LM. Based on this allegation and in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that sales of rebar manufactured by LM were made at 
prices below the COP. As a result, the Department has conducted an 
investigation to determine whether LM made sales in its third-country 
comparison market at prices below the COP during the POI, within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis 
described below.
    1. Calculation of Cost of Production. In accordance with section 
773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the 
sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for the home market general and administrative 
(G&A) expenses, selling expenses, packing expenses and interest 
expenses.
    We relied on the COP data submitted by LM in its cost questionnaire 
responses, except, as noted below, in specific instances where the 
submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued. We made 
company-specific adjustments to the reported COP as follows. First, we 
adjusted LM's reported G&A expense to include certain non-operating 
income and expense amounts that relate to the general operations of the 
company. Second, we adjusted the cost of goods sold amount used as the 
denominator in LM's G&A and interest expense rate calculations by 
excluding certain non-operating income and expense amounts included in 
the numerator of the G&A expense rate calculation. Finally, we excluded 
packing expenses from the calculation of LM's G&A and interest 
expenses.
    2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices. We compared the adjusted 
weighted-average COP to the third-country market sales of the foreign 
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP 
within an extended period of time (i.e., a period of one year) in 
substantial quantities \4\ and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, we 
determined that sales made below the COP were made in substantial 
quantities if the volume of such sales represented 20 percent or 
more of the volume of sales under consideration for the 
determination of NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the 
third-country prices, less any applicable movement charges.
    3. Results of the COP Test. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 
Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given 
product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-
cost sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' We found that 
no models of rebar sold by LM failed the 20 percent test and, 
therefore, we did not disregard any third-country sales in calculating 
NV.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Third-Country Market Prices
    We based third-country market prices on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in Germany. We adjusted the starting price for 
foreign inland freight and international freight. We made no other 
adjustments.
    We note that LM claimed a credit revenue for sales made to the 
United States and Germany. In its questionnaire responses, LM 
characterized this revenue as arising from prepayment made to LM by 
certain customers. For this preliminary determination, we have not 
allowed this claimed credit revenue as a circumstance of sale 
adjustment, as the respondent does not appear to be receiving 
prepayment from its customers. Instead, the respondent is apparently 
obtaining funds from banks in order to finance production, and 
arranging for customers to cancel this obligation directly with the 
banks after the merchandise is shipped. While the respondent has the 
use of the money to finance production, it must pay an interest fee to 
the banks, which offsets any imputed revenue that might arise from such 
an arrangement. LM has not demonstrated that these fees have been 
properly reported to the Department. As a result, we have denied the 
claimed credit revenue for U.S. and third-country sales for purposes of 
this preliminary determination. We intend to examine this issue further 
at verification.
D. Level of Trade
    LM made only EP sales to the United States. LM's EP and third-
country sales were made to trading companies and resellers. In both 
cases, the selling functions performed by LM for the

[[Page 8328]]

different customer types and channels of distribution were limited in 
both markets to price and quantity negotiation, packing, and loading. 
The selling functions were virtually identical in both markets.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade as the EP transaction.\5\ The NV level of trade 
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP 
sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually from exporter to importer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted above, LM had only EP sales in the United States 
during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison 
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained 
information from LM about the marketing stages involved in the reported 
U.S. and third-country market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by the respondent for each channel of 
distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and third-country 
market sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the 
starting price before any adjustments.
    LM reported that its customers in both the United States and 
Germany were trading companies and resellers. LM further reported that 
its selling functions in both markets were identical and very limited 
(primarily to the provision of freight services), and did not include 
inventory maintenance, technical advice, warranty services, or 
advertising. Given this, we found a single level of trade for EP sales, 
and a single, identical level of trade in the comparison market. 
Therefore no adjustment for level of trade is warranted or granted.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for Latvia when we make our final determination regarding 
sales at LTFV in this investigation, which will be no later than 135 
days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of steel 
concrete reinforcing bars from Latvia that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. We are also instructing the 
Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the dumping margin, as indicated in the chart below. These 
instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further 
notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liepajas Metalurgs.........................................        17.37
All Others.................................................        17.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of the 
proceedings in these investigations in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our sales at LTFV and negative critical circumstances 
preliminary determinations. If our final antidumping determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the imports covered by that 
determination are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, 
the U.S. industry. The deadline for the ITC determination would be the 
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 
45 days after the date of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification reports. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide the Department with an 
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to more than one rebar 
case, the Department may schedule a single hearing to encompass all 
those cases. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and 
place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    As noted above, we will make our final determination no later than 
135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 16, 2001.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-2518 Filed 1-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P