[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8333-8338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2520]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-841-804]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Moldova

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nithya Nagarajan or Michele Mire at 
(202) 482-5253 or (202) 482-4711, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, 
Office 4, 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 (the Department) 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 
(2000).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that steel concrete reinforcing bars 
(rebar) from Moldova 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 (the ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a 
reasonable indication 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, we sent the antidumping questionnaire to the 
Embassy of the Republic of Moldova with a letter requesting that it 
forward the questionnaire to all exporters who had shipments of rebar 
to the United States during the POI.\2\ We received responses from one 
company, Moldova Steel Works (MSW). We have reason to believe that MSW 
is the only exporter to the United States during the POI. We

[[Page 8334]]

issued several supplemental questionnaires to MSW, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 18, 2000, in the Department's original questionnaire, we 
requested MSW to provide copies of legislation and other documentation 
to substantiate its claim for a separate rate. On September 22, 2000, 
MSW responded to the Department's original Section A questionnaire and 
claimed that the company was located in the ``Transdniestrian region of 
Moldova'' (TMR).\3\ Accordingly, MSW stated that any discussion 
regarding separate rates or copies of documentation and legislation 
would concern only the relationship between ``TMR'' and MSW. Currently, 
the United States Government does not recognize the ``TMR'' as a 
separate political state. On October 3, 2000, the Department, issued a 
supplemental questionnaire, requesting that MSW provide complete 
answers to the separate rates section of the questionnaire as it 
relates to the Republic of Moldova. On October 20, 2000, MSW responded, 
claiming that it is not under the jurisdiction of the Republic of 
Moldova and would therefore only provide information as it related to 
``TMR.'' Finally, on October 31, 2000, the Department issued a second 
supplemental section A questionnaire, requesting MSW to provide copies 
of documentation and other supporting evidence for its claim for a 
separate rate, its claim for treating U.S. sales as export price (EP) 
transactions, and supporting discussions on several issues regarding 
affiliations with its customers. This second supplemental questionnaire 
was issued by the Department due to MSW's failure to respond to several 
questions in its October 20, 2000 response on these same issues. A 
response to the second supplemental questionnaire was filed on November 
8, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although Moldova became independent in 1991, the population 
east of the Dniester river has proclaimed a ``Transdniestrian'' 
republic, referred to in this case as ``TMR.'' See CIA World 
Factbook, Moldova. The United States Government does not recognize 
``TMR'' as a legitimate governmental body, i.e., ``country'' within 
the meaning of section 773(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The United States 
only recognizes the Republic of Moldova as an independent political 
entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of this proceeding, MSW requested, and the 
Department granted, several extensions to enable MSW to respond to the 
Department's questions. The issues of primary importance in this 
investigation are separate rates, the proper universe of U.S. sales, 
and any potential affiliations with customers. These topics were 
addressed in the Department's original, first supplemental section A, 
and second supplemental section A questionnaires. We note that at each 
stage of the process, MSW failed to provide the requested information 
even after receiving extensions from the Department. For example, with 
regard to translations and discussions of legislation issued by the 
Government of Moldova and ``TMR,'' the Department made multiple 
requests for information. However, as evidenced by the submissions on 
the record, MSW repeatedly filed responses stating that it would 
provide the requested information at some undisclosed future date. 
Finally, after numerous requests, MSW filed translated copies of the 
requested legislation on November 22, 2000, nearly three months after 
these documents were initially requested in the Department's original 
questionnaire. Nonetheless, recognizing MSW's attempts to respond to 
the Department's information requests, and in light of its claimed 
unique difficulties, we believe that it is appropriate to use the 
information placed on the record for this preliminary determination, 
subject to verification.
    In a letter filed 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 Moldova. On 
November 27, 2000, the Department preliminarily determined that there 
is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
exist for imports of rebar from Moldova. See Preliminary Determinations 
of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Ukraine 
and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000).
    On October 13, 2000, in a cover letter accompanying its unsolicited 
market economy Section B and C response, MSW requested that the 
Department find the concrete reinforcing bar industry in Moldova to be 
a market-oriented industry (MOI), but failed to provide a market 
economy section A response. The petitioner submitted comments to the 
Department on October 18, 2000, objecting to the MOI claim made by the 
responding company on the grounds that neither the Republic of Moldova 
nor ``TMR'' can be described as operating under market principles. 
Subsequently, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to MSW 
on October 20, 2000, requesting any additional information relevant to 
the MOI request, including a request for a market economy section A 
response. On November 8, 2000, we received responses from MSW providing 
documentation which it claimed supported its MOI claim, but in essence 
merely referred the Department to MSW's September 23, 2000, October 20, 
2000, and November 8, 2000 responses to the non-market economy section 
A questionnaire.
    On October 27, 2000, the Department issued its supplemental section 
C and D questionnaire, requesting MSW to provide information to 
substantiate its claims for date of sale, affiliation issues, and also 
to provide a complete list of all the factors of production which MSW 
had omitted in its original Section C and D responses filed on October 
13, 2000. The response to this supplemental questionnaire was received 
on November 3, 2000.
    On November 3, 2000, the petitioner alleged, in conjunction with 
MSW's MOI request, that MSW's sales were sold below the cost of 
production. Pending the Department's determination with respect to 
MSW's MOI request, the Department initiated a sales-below cost 
investigation on November 7, 2000, and issued a section D questionnaire 
to MSW. Responses to this questionnaire were submitted on December 6, 
2000, after the Department granted MSW's request for an extension.
    On November 9, 2000, the Department received a timely request for 
postponement of the preliminary determination from the petitioner in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e). The Department postponed the 
preliminary determination, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, 
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).

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000. This period 
corresponds to the two 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 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.

[[Page 8335]]

Critical Circumstances

    On August 22, 2000, the petitioner alleged that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of rebar from Moldova. On 
November 27, 2000, the Department preliminary determined that there is 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances 
exist for imports of rebar from Moldova. See Preliminary Determinations 
of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine 
and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000) (Critical Circumstances 
Notice).

Non-Market Economy Status for Moldova

    In accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country has at one time been considered a non-market 
economy (NME) shall remain in effect until revoked. This status covers 
the geographic area of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
(U.S.S.R.), each part of which retains the NME status of the former 
U.S.S.R. Therefore, Moldova will be treated as an NME unless and until 
its NME status is revoked by the Department. See Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Uranium From 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan; and 
Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: 
Uranium From Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and 
Turkmenistan, 57 FR 23380 (June 3, 1992).
    The respondent in this investigation has not requested a revocation 
of Moldova's NME status. We have, therefore, preliminarily continued to 
treat Moldova as a NME country.
    When the Department is investigating imports from a NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on 
the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a comparable market 
economy that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of individual factor prices are discussed under the Normal 
Value section below.

Market Oriented Industry

    As indicated above, the single Moldovan producer, MSW, requested 
that the Department find the concrete reinforcing bar industry in 
Moldova to be a MOI. We note at the outset that MSW did not request MOI 
status until October 13, 2000, well after our NME questionnaires were 
issued, leaving the Department little time to conduct its analysis. 
Nevertheless, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire 
regarding information relevant to the MOI request on October 20, 2000. 
This supplemental questionnaire requested that MSW address the criteria 
for determining whether an MOI exists. Specifically, this questionnaire 
requested MSW to provide information regarding the level of 
governmental involvement in setting prices and production quantities, 
and the relationship between MSW and its owners; to describe the 
ownership structure of the rebar industry; and to demonstrate that 
market determined prices are paid for all significant inputs used in 
the production process. Furthermore, the Department sought clarifying 
information with regard to MSW's responses to section B and C of the 
Department's market economy questionnaire (including discussions on the 
proper comparison market), and requested that MSW respond to a market 
economy section A questionnaire to address concerns regarding 
affiliation, ownership, and distribution systems. On November 8, 2000, 
MSW responded to the Department's questionnaire by providing generic 
statements and cross-references to prior submissions, which the 
Department had separately found to be deficient. Nevertheless, the 
Department undertook an examination of the information placed on the 
record.
    The criteria for determining whether a MOI exists are: (1) 
Virtually no government involvement in setting prices or amounts to be 
produced; (2) the industry producing the merchandise under review 
should be characterized by private or collective ownership; and (3) 
market determined prices must be paid for all significant inputs, 
whether material or non-material, and for all but an insignificant 
portion of all inputs accounting for the total value of the 
merchandise. See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Administrative Review, 61 FR 58514, 58516 
(November 15, 1996) (Lug Nuts). In addition, in order to make an 
affirmative determination that an industry in a NME country is a MOI, 
the Department requires information on virtually the entire industry. 
See Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat from the People's Republic of China, 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 41347, 
41353 (August 1, 1997) (Crawfish). A MOI claim, and supporting 
evidence, must cover producers that collectively constitute the 
industry in question; otherwise, the MOI claim is dismissed. See id.
    We preliminarily find in this investigation that the Moldovan rebar 
industry does not meet the Department's criteria for an affirmative MOI 
finding. As noted above, MSW responded to the Department's supplemental 
MOI questionnaire by providing generic statements and cross-references 
to prior submissions, which the Department had separately found to be 
deficient. For example, MSW responded with the same unsupported 
assertion from its section A response that the ``TMR'' does not 
exercise control over its use and acquisition of capital. Therefore, 
applying the facts before us with respect to the first two criteria 
listed above, and based upon an examination of the information 
submitted on the record by MSW, we find that there is insufficient 
evidence to determine that: (1) There is virtually no government 
involvement in setting prices or amounts to be produced; and (2) the 
industry under review is characterized by private or collective 
ownership. With regard to the third factor, the record evidence 
demonstrates that market-determined prices are not paid for all 
significant inputs, whether material or non-material. In fact, Exhibit 
3 of MSW's October 13, 2000 Section D response, and page 33 of MSW's 
November 3, 2000 supplemental response, demonstrate that only a few 
minor inputs were purchased from market economy suppliers and paid for 
in market economy currencies. Thus, the information on the record of 
this investigation does not support Moldova's claim that its rebar 
industry is a MOI. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the 
Moldovan rebar industry does not meet the criteria for an affirmative 
MOI finding.

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject 
merchandise in a NME country a single rate, unless an exporter can 
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to 
a separate rate. MSW has submitted separate rates information in its 
section A responses, and has requested a separate, company-specific 
rate. MSW has stated that it is partially owned by the ``State Property 
Committee of TMR,'' \4\ but claimed that this entity is neither 
associated with, nor endorsed by, the Government of the Republic of 
Moldova. Despite the Department's requests for documents discussing the 
relationship between

[[Page 8336]]

MSW and the Republic of Moldova, MSW only provided copies of 
legislative enactments and other supporting documentation discussing 
the relationship between MSW and the ``TMR,'' an entity not recognized 
by the United States as a ``country'' within the meaning of section 
773(c)(1)(A) of the Act. See Case History section above for a full 
discussion. We note that, although the United States does not recognize 
``TMR'' as a country, even if the Department were to entertain, 
arguendo, MSW's analysis of its relationship to ``TMR'' under section 
773(c) of the Act, the information provided does not support MSW's 
claim. An examination of the submitted documents alleged to establish 
the independence of MSW from the ``TMR'' reveals that MSW has failed to 
provide sufficient documentation to support its claim for a separate 
rate. Consequently, as discussed in detail below, we preliminarily 
determine, based on the facts on the record, that MSW has failed to 
meet the separate rates test both in relation to the Government of 
Moldova, as well as the ``TMR.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MSW made references in its responses to the ``State Property 
Committee of TMR,'' the ``State Committee on Property of TMR,'' and 
the ``State Committee of Property of TMR.'' As these three names are 
almost identical, we believe that these names all refer to the same 
entity. For the purposes of this notice, we will use a single name, 
the ``State Property Committee of TMR,'' in place of the three names 
that MSW used in its responses to refer to this entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's separate rates test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed 
to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over export-
related investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Honey from 
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 14725, 14728 (March 20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 
56 FR 20585-87 (May 6, 1991), and amplified in Final Determination of 
Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22588 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under 
this test, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if 
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate the absence of both (1) de 
jure and (2) de facto governmental control over export activities. See 
Silicon Carbide and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 
22545 (May 8, 1995).
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    During the course of this investigation, MSW has failed to provide 
any legislation or other documentation issued by the Republic of 
Moldova regarding the absence of de jure control. For purposes of this 
investigation, we preliminarily determine that MSW has not provided 
sufficient documentary proof of the absence of de jure control by the 
Republic of Moldova. As a consequence, we find that MSW fails to 
overcome the presumption of de jure control.
    Although the Republic of Moldova is the only country recognized by 
the United States for the purposes of this investigation, for the sake 
of argument we have addressed MSW's claims with respect to ``TMR.'' 
Given the fact that MSW only provided documentation regarding its 
relationship with the ``State Property Committee of TMR,'' the 
Department examined this information to determine the extent to which 
there is any governmental control, regional or otherwise, over the 
operations of MSW. MSW asserts in its questionnaire response that under 
its Charter, it operates as an independent economic unit with those 
rights accorded to a legal entity, including the ownership of property. 
MSW claims that it bears independent responsibility for its sales and 
that the ``State Property Committee of TMR,'' does not control the 
company's export activities. MSW also claims that there are no 
licensing requirements, quotas, or any other restrictions or controls 
by the ``TMR'' on exports of subject merchandise to the United States 
or any other destination.
    Despite having made such claims, and despite several requests by 
the Department, MSW failed to submit adequate translations and original 
language copies of the legislation of the ``TMR.'' MSW provided the 
Department with a copy of its Charter, but since this document is 
neither a formal measure by the Government of the Republic of Moldova 
nor ``TMR,'' its provisions are not dispositive in the de jure 
analysis. Therefore, without any documentary proof of the absence of de 
jure control, we preliminarily determine that MSW has failed to 
overcome the presumption of de jure control.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    Having failed to overcome the presumption of de jure control, the 
Department need not address MSW's claim that it is not de facto 
controlled by either the Republic of Moldova or the ``TMR.'' However, 
we note that the information supplied would also be insufficient to 
establish an absence of de facto control as discussed below.
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or 
subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.
    In its responses, MSW failed to discuss the extent, if any, to 
which the Republic of Moldova exercised de facto control over its 
export functions. As such, the Department was prevented from conducting 
a thorough analysis of the four afore-mentioned factors regarding the 
absence of de facto control by the Government of Moldova. In view of 
MSW's failure to provide documentation regarding its relationship with 
the Government of the Republic of Moldova, MSW fails to overcome the 
presumption of de facto governmental control.
    MSW did provide certain information in relation to the de facto 
control by the ``TMR,'' which, as discussed above, we are addressing 
solely for the sake of argument. MSW reported that it has authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts without express ``TMR'' approval, and 
claimed that no organization outside MSW reviews or approves any aspect 
of MSW's export sales transactions. In addition, although MSW failed to 
discuss the Republic of Moldova's control over MSW's export functions, 
the submitted sales documentation showed no involvement by either the 
Government of Moldova or ``TMR'' in setting export prices.

[[Page 8337]]

    In regards to management selection, MSW stated that the 
shareholders of MSW elect the Board of Directors which in turn elects 
the Governing Board (i.e., the company management). The documentation 
on the record did not reference the Government of Moldova, but 
indicated that the ``State Property Committee of TMR'' is a shareholder 
that exercises veto power over several aspects of the operational 
control of MSW. This includes the power to veto any ventures, 
associations, and agreements entered into by MSW for export sales.
    In regards to export revenue and profits, MSW reported that it has 
no internal restrictions on the use of its export revenue, but stated 
that by special decrees of the ``TMR,'' it is required to sell a 
certain percentage of its export revenue.
    In addition, MSW further claimed that the management of MSW is 
solely responsible for the disposition of the profits. However, MSW's 
Charter indicates that the ``State Property Committee of TMR'' 
influences the allocation of MSW's profit.
    While the record evidence indicates that MSW sets its own export 
prices and has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts, it 
appears that, assuming the validity of the regional entity ``TMR,'' MSW 
does not have autonomy from the ``State Property Committee of TMR'' in 
selecting its management, since the regional ``State Property Committee 
of TMR'' assists in appointing MSW's Directors, who in turn select the 
management. In addition, MSW does not have complete operational control 
over either the proceeds of its export sales or its profits.
    Furthermore, other record evidence, including MSW's Charter, 
indicates that in general, MSW is under the jurisdiction of the ``State 
Property Committee of TMR.'' In view of MSW's failure to provide 
documentation regarding its relationship with the Government of the 
Republic of Moldova, MSW fails to overcome the presumption of de facto 
governmental control. Moreover, even if ``TMR'' were a recognized 
government, MSW's numerous ties to the ``State Property Committee of 
TMR'' would justify a finding of de facto government control.
    The failure to demonstrate either the absence of de jure or de 
facto control makes an exporter ineligible for a separate rate. In this 
case, we have preliminary determined that MSW has failed to demonstrate 
the absence of both de jure and de facto control. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily determines that MSW is not eligible to receive 
a separate rate.

The Moldova-Wide Rate

    As in all NME cases, the Department implements a policy whereby 
there is a rebuttable presumption that all exporters or producers 
comprise a single exporter under common government control, the ``NME 
entity.'' The Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity, 
unless an exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. 
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that MSW was 
the only Moldovan producer and exporter to sell the subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POI. Since the only Moldovan producer 
and exporter of the subject merchandise responded to the Department's 
questionnaire, and we have no reason to believe that there are other 
non-responding exporters/producers of the subject merchandise during 
the POI, we calculated a Moldova-wide rate based on the weighted-
average margin determined for MSW.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Moldova were made in the 
United States at less than fair value, we compared export price (EP) to 
a normal value (NV) calculated using our NME methodology, as described 
below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated weighted-average EPs.

Export Price

    We used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, by MSW to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, and 
constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts on the record. At the time of sale, MSW knew that 
its reported sales of the subject merchandise were destined for the 
United States.
    We calculated EP based on the freight-on-board (FOB) prices charged 
to the first unaffiliated customer for exportation to the United 
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for inland freight from the factory to the port of 
export and domestic brokerage and handling expenses. Because inland 
freight and brokerage and handling services were provided by NME 
companies, we based freight and brokerage charges on surrogate freight 
and brokerage rates from India. See Normal Value section for further 
discussion.

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department 
initially determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka 
were the countries most comparable to Moldova in terms of overall 
economic development. See the memorandum regarding Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Moldova: 
Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection, dated August 
31, 2000.
    Furthermore, the Department determined, based on information 
derived from publicly available sources, that India is a significant 
producer of products comparable to the subject merchandise. Therefore, 
we have relied, where possible, on information from India, and 
calculated NV by applying Indian values to virtually all of MSW's 
factors of production. Where no Indian values were available, we used 
information from Indonesia, the second-most complete source of 
information from among the potential surrogate countries. See Surrogate 
Value Memorandum, dated January 16, 2001.

B. Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production (e.g. steel scrap, ferroalloys, labor, 
energy, and packing materials) reported by MSW for the POI. To 
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly available surrogate values from India, and where necessary, 
from Indonesia.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
include freight costs in input prices to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to the surrogate values of inputs a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the port of 
export to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408-11 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where MSW did not 
report the distance between the material supplier and the factory, we 
used, as

[[Page 8338]]

facts available, the longest distance reported, i.e., the distance 
between the port of export and the factory. For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the values to account for 
inflation using wholesale price indices published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
    We valued material inputs and packing materials (i.e., metal scrap, 
ferromanganese, silicomanganese, ferrosilicon, lime, limestone, coke, 
aluminum powder, aluminum, electrodes, wire rod, paint, etc.) using 
values from the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number, 
from imports statistics reported in the Monthly Statistics on Foreign 
Trade for India for the partial year 1998, or in the TradeStat Web data 
for the period October 1999 to March 2000. For a complete analysis of 
surrogate values, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value electricity, we used the 1997 electricity rates, as 
adjusted, for India reported in the publication Energy Prices and 
Taxes, fourth quarter 1999. We based the value of natural gas on the 
value calculated in the final determination of Polyvinyl Alcohol from 
the People's Republic of China. Finally we valued oxygen, nitrogen, and 
argon on the import statistics reported in the Monthly Statistics of 
Foreign Trade for India for the partial year 1998.
    We based our calculation of factory overhead and selling, general 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit on the 1999-2000 
financial statement of TATA Steel Company, an Indian producer of 
products comparable to the subject merchandise.
    To value railway freight rates, we used a 1998 rate provided by the 
Indian Railway Conference Association. For truck transportation, we 
valued truck rates using information from a prior investigation, as 
adjusted for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    For each of the material inputs, energy, and transportation 
surrogate values selected for use in the Department's calculation, we 
inflated the values using appropriate inflators when these values were 
not from a period concurrent with the POI. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.

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 Moldova when we make our final determination 
regarding sales at LTFV in this investigation, which will be no later 
than 75 days after the date of publication of the preliminary LTFV 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    Because of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances 
finding, we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of 
all entries of rebar from Moldova entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days prior to the date 
on which this notice is published in the Federal Register. See Critical 
Circumstances Notice, dated November 27, 2000. We are instructing the 
Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as 
indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending liquidation 
will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moldova-Wide Rate...........................................      277.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Moldova-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject 
merchandise from Moldova.

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to the 
proceeding in this investigation 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 affirmative sales at LTFV and critical circumstances 
preliminary determinations. If our final antidumping determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine whether these imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury, to the U.S. industry. 
The deadline for that 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 
seven days after the issuance of the verification report. 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, it would be appreciated 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 the 
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.
    If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination no later than 75 days after the date of the 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. 01-2520 Filed 1-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P