[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8343-8348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2522]



[[Page 8343]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-455-803; A-560-811; A-823-809]


Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Poland, Indonesia, and 
Ukraine

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Ellis at (202) 482-2336 (for 
Poland), Maisha Cryor at (202) 482-5831 (for Indonesia), or Keir 
Whitson at (202) 482-1777 (for Ukraine), AD/CVD Enforcement, 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 Determinations

    We preliminarily determine that steel concrete reinforcing bars 
(rebar) from Poland, Indonesia, and Ukraine 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

    These investigations were 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 the investigations, 
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 complete antidumping 
questionnaires to all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise 
in Poland and Ukraine.\2\ In the case of Indonesia, the complete 
antidumping questionnaire was issued to PT The Master Steel 
Manufacturing Co.\3\ (Master Steel), and partial Section A 
questionnaires\4\ were issued to several additional Indonesian steel 
companies in order to gather adequate quantity and value information to 
make a respondent selection determination in that investigation. For a 
further discussion of the respondent selection process for Indonesia, 
see the Indonesia section, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because the Department considers Ukraine to be a non-market 
economy, and because the number of producers/exporters identified in 
Ukraine did not appear to preclude an examination of each exporter 
and that exporter's suppliers, we determined to examine all exports 
to the United States from Ukraine in accordance with our general 
practice. See Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga Re: Selection of 
Respondents (August 25, 2000). In the case of Poland, a market 
economy, we found that only one producer in Poland exported subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI. We therefore 
determined to examine all exports from Poland during the POI, in 
accordance with our general practice. Id.
    \3\ 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.
    \4\ The partial Section A questionnaire requests information on 
the quantity and value of home and U.S. market sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Poland.
    On August 30, 2000, the Department preliminarily determined that 
critical circumstances exist with respect to exports of rebar from 
Poland. See Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga Re: Preliminary Affirmative 
Determinations of Critical Circumstances (August 30, 2000); see also 
Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From the People's Republic of China and Poland, 65 FR 
54228 (September 7, 2000).
    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 Ukraine. 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 Ukraine. See Preliminary Determinations 
of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine 
and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000).
    On November 9, 2000, the petitioner requested a postponement of the 
preliminary determinations in these investigations. On November 21, 
2000, the Department published a Federal Register notice postponing the 
deadline for the preliminary determinations 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 Investigations

    For Poland and Indonesia, 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). Because Ukraine is a non-market economy, the POI for Ukraine 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition; namely, October 1, 1999 through March 
31, 2000.

[[Page 8344]]

Scope of Investigations

    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.

Facts Available

1. Application of Facts Available
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to 
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner 
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject 
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of 
the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted 
information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The 
information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the 
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties.
    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) of the Act states that an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition. See also 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. 
Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).

Poland

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2), 776(b), and 782(d) and (e) of 
the Act, for the reasons explained below, we preliminarily determine 
that the use of total adverse facts available is warranted with respect 
to Huta Ostrowiec S.A. and Stalexport (collectively, Stalexport).
    On August 18, 2000, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Stalexport. On October 6, 2000, we received a section 
A questionnaire response from Stalexport, and on October 10, 2000, we 
received the responses to sections B through D of our questionnaire. We 
reviewed these initial responses and found that a substantial portion 
of the sales in Stalexport's home market sales listing were sales to an 
affiliated reseller, rather than the resales to the first unaffiliated 
customer. This resulted not only in an incomplete and unreliable home 
market sales listing, but also in an inaccurate total quantity and 
value for Stalexport's POI sales. In order to address this and other 
deficiencies, we issued a supplemental section A questionnaire on 
October 6, 2000. The response was initially due on October 20, 2000. 
However, Stalexport never retrieved the supplemental questionnaire from 
our courier office. Therefore, we re-issued the supplemental section A 
questionnaire on October 25, 2000, along with supplemental section B 
and section C questionnaires. This gave Stalexport an additional 
eighteen days to complete its response to section A, i.e., until 
November 7, 2000, and until November 13, 2000, to respond to 
supplemental section B and section C questionnaires. We also issued a 
supplemental section D questionnaire on October 27, 2000, with a 
response due date of November 9, 2000.
    Although we provided Stalexport with additional time to complete 
the supplemental section A questionnaire, the company did not submit a 
response. Stalexport also did not respond to the section B, C or D 
supplementals by the respective due dates, nor did the company request 
that the Department grant any extension of the deadline to respond. On 
November 9, 2000, we phoned counsel for Stalexport to inquire as to 
whether the respondent was aware that the deadlines for responding to 
the supplemental questionnaire responses had passed. Counsel for 
Stalexport indicated that he was indeed aware that the deadline had 
passed, and offered no explanation for Stalexport's failure to meet the 
response deadline. See Memorandum to the File from Charles Riggle, 
dated November 13, 2000.
    As described above, Stalexport failed to provide, within the 
applicable deadlines, its responses to the Department's supplemental 
questionnaires. Despite the Department's repeated attempts, pursuant to 
section 782(d) of the Act, to obtain, inter alia, Stalexport's 
unreported sales by its affiliated resellers, Stalexport failed to 
respond. In addition, without the supplemental questionnaire responses, 
we are unable to determine the extent of unreported home market sales, 
whether Stalexport provided the appropriate date of sale for the sales 
that it did report, and whether Stalexport's home market and U.S. sales 
are reported on an equivalent weight basis for comparison purposes. As 
a result, we do not have a reliable home market listing to use for 
comparison purposes in accordance with our general practice, nor are we 
able to confirm the appropriate date of sale for any of the submitted 
sales.
    We further find that the application of section 782(e) of the Act, 
we are unable to use the company-specific information contained in the 
responses we did receive, given that the deadline for submitting the 
necessary information has passed, and the responses currently on the 
record are so incomplete that they cannot serve as a reliable basis for 
reaching the applicable determination. See sections 782(e)(1), (3) and 
(4) of the Act. We further note that Stalexport did not notify the 
Department that it would be unable to submit the requested information, 
nor did it provide any explanation or propose an alternate form of 
submitting the required data, pursuant to section 782(c)(1) of the Act. 
Because the information that Stalexport failed to report is critical 
for purposes of the preliminary dumping calculations, the Department 
must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching its preliminary 
determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C).
    We also find that the application of an adverse inference in this 
case is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As 
discussed above, Stalexport failed to provide the critical data 
pertaining to the company's affiliated party transactions and date of 
sale, despite the Department's clear directions in both the original 
and supplemental questionnaires and numerous conversations with the 
company's counsel. Furthermore, Stalexport made no effort to provide 
any explanation or propose an alternate form of submitting the required 
data. For these reasons, we find that Stalexport did not act to the 
best of its ability in responding to the Department's request for 
information, and that, consequently, an adverse inference is warranted 
under section 776(b) of the Act. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 
Stainless Steel Hollow Products from

[[Page 8345]]

Japan, 65FR42985 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total adverse 
facts available where respondent failed to respond to the antidumping 
questionnaires).

Indonesia

    In accordance with section 776 of the Act, for the reasons 
explained below, we preliminarily determine that the use of total 
adverse facts available is warranted with respect to Indonesia. The 
Department issued partial section A antidumping duty questionnaires 
(partial A questionnaires) to the following thirteen respondents on 
August 18 and August 23, 2000: PT Gunung Gahapi Sakti (Sakti), PT 
Jakarta Kyoei Steel Works Ltd. (Jakarta Steel Group) (Kyoei), PT The 
Master Steel Manufacturing Co., (Master Steel), PT Hanil Jaya Metal 
Works (Hanil), PT Bhirma Steel (Bhirma), PT Inter World Steel Mills 
Indonesia (Inter World), Jakarta Steel Megah Utama (Jakarta Steel 
Group) (Megah Utama), PT Jakarta Steel Perdana Industri (Jakarta Steel 
Group) (Perdana), Krakatau Wajatama (Krakatau), PT Jakarta Cakra 
Tunggal (Tunggal), PT Pulogadung Steel (Pulogadung), PT Gunung Gahapi 
Bahara (Gahapi), and PT Gunung Garuda (Garuda). On August 18, 2000, the 
Department issued a partial section A questionnaire to the Association 
of Indonesian Steel Billet and Concrete Producers and requested that it 
forward the questionnaire to any other known producers/exporters of 
rebar. The Department established August 28, 2000, as the deadline for 
responding to the partial section A questionnaires.
    By the August 28, 2000, deadline, the Department had received 
responses from the following six companies: Kyoei, Inter World, Megah 
Utama, Gahapi, Garuda and Master Steel. Of the six timely responding 
companies, Master Steel was the only company to report exports of rebar 
to the United States during the POI. We conducted a Customs data query 
and confirmed the no shipments claims made by the remaining five 
companies listed above.
    On August 30, 2000, the Department issued a complete antidumping 
questionnaire to Master Steel. In addition, on August 30, 2000, the 
Department received a no shipment response from Tunggal.
    On September 4, 2000, Pulogadung mailed a no shipment response to 
the Department. However, the response did not reach the appropriate 
Department officials until September 7, 2000. On September 11, 2000, 
Hanil sent a no shipment response to the Department. Therefore, as 
discussed below, the Department sent Pulogadung and Hanil two FA 
letters, the first addressing no response and the second addressing 
late response.
    On September 6, 2000, the Department notified the following five 
companies that their ``no shipment'' responses were subject to 
verification and that, if shipments were ultimately discovered, the 
Department may have to rely upon facts available in making its 
determinations in this proceeding: Kyoei, Inter World, Megah Utama, 
Gahapi, and Garuda. In addition, on September 6, 2000, the Department 
notified the following six non-responsive companies that the Department 
had not received their partial section A questionnaire responses and 
that, as a result, the Department would have to rely upon FA in making 
its determinations in this proceeding: Sakti, Bhirma, Krakatau, 
Perdana, Hanil, and Pulogadung.
    On September 13, 2000, the Department notified Tunggal, Pulogadung 
and Hanil, that the Department had not received their partial A 
responses by the August 28, 2000, deadline and that, as a result, the 
Department would have to rely upon FA in making its determinations in 
this proceeding.
    In October 2000, Master Steel submitted its sections A, B, C, and D 
questionnaire responses. In the initial response to our antidumping 
questionnaire, we found that substantial information in the 
questionnaire remained unanswered. Master Steel failed to provide: (1) 
The transfer price, cost of production or market price of the major 
input received from its affiliate, (2) product-specific costs, (3) the 
quantity of each control number produced during the POI, (4) POI 
specific costs, (5) costs on the same weight and currency basis as home 
market sales, (6) worksheets showing its calculation of the general and 
administrative expense ratio and the financial expense ratio, (7) an 
explanation concerning affiliation issues, (8) accurate control numbers 
(CONNUMs), (9) an explanation of zero values for certain selling 
expenses, (10) clarification concerning the appropriateness of the 
reported U.S. sales date, (11) home market (HM) shipment dates, (12) 
accurate HM payment dates, (13) an explanation and reconciliation of HM 
and U.S. imputed credit expenses, (14) an explanation of missing 
product specifications, (15) clarification concerning U.S. inland 
freight, and (16) an explanation of its reported packing expenses. See 
October 23, 2000, and November 2, 2000, supplemental questionnaires.
    Master Steel's failure to provide this information resulted in an 
incomplete and unreliable cost response and home market and U.S. sales 
listings, and an inaccurate total quantity and value for Master Steel's 
POI sales. In order to address these and other deficiencies, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires on October 23, and November 2, 2000, as 
noted above. On November 7, 2000, Master Steel submitted a timely 
response to the Department's October 23, 2000, section A supplemental 
questionnaire. On November 9, 2000, via email, Master Steel requested 
an eighteen day extension of time for filing its response to the 
Department's November 2, 2000, supplemental questionnaire (supplemental 
questionnaire). On November 14, 2000, in response to Master Steel's 
November 9, 2000, extension request, and after receiving several 
improperly submitted submissions (i.e. submissions that were presented 
via facsimile and email), the Department sent Master Steel a letter 
granting it an extension until November 20, 2000. In addition, the 
letter once again reiterated the Department's requirement that all 
documents submitted to the Department must be properly filed and served 
on all interested parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.103 (b) and 19 
CFR 351.303. The Department informed Master Steel that it would no 
longer accept submissions that were not officially submitted to and 
stamped by the Central Records Unit (CRU) with the date and time of 
receipt. See Letter from the Department of Commerce (November 14, 
2000). The November 14, 2000, letter, as well as the Department's 
previous letters, also advised Master Steel of the potential 
repercussions (i.e., rejection of responses, use of FA) that could 
occur from its failure to abide by the Department's filing 
requirements.
    On November 17, 2000, Master Steel, via facsimile, requested yet 
another extension of time to file its supplemental questionnaire 
response. Although this extension request was improperly submitted, the 
Department decided to grant it until November 27, 2000, in case Master 
Steel had not received the Department's November 14, 2000, letter prior 
to sending its November 17, 2000, facsimile requesting an extension.
    On November 23, 2000, Master Steel, via facsimile, requested 
another extension of time to file its response to the Department's 
November 2, 2000, supplemental questionnaire. On November 30, 2000, the 
Department granted Master Steel an extension until December 1, 2000, to 
file its response. In addition, the November 30, 2000,

[[Page 8346]]

letter noted the improper submission of Master Steel's most recent 
extension request and stated that this extension would be the last 
extension granted for Master Steel to respond to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire. The Department explained that it was not in 
a position to grant any further extensions to Master Steel because of 
the impending deadline for publication of the preliminary 
determination, the fact that there would not be sufficient time to 
analyze the Master Steel responses, and the inadequate time to issue 
supplemental questionnaires regarding any information that Master Steel 
would have submitted.
    However, despite the Department's explanation of the proper filing 
requirements in its previous extension letters, on December 5, 2000, 
Master Steel submitted an untimely response to sections B, C, and D of 
the Department's supplemental questionnaire.
    In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we have determined 
that the use of adverse FA is warranted for Sakti, Bhirma, Krakatau, 
Perdana, Hanil, Pulogadung, Tunggal and Master Steel. Sakti, Bhirma, 
Krakatau, and Perdana failed to respond to the Department's partial A 
questionnaire. Hanil, Pulogadung and Tunggal failed to respond to the 
Department's partial section A questionnaire by the applicable 
deadline. Because these respondents failed to provide the requested 
quantity and value information by the applicable deadline, the 
Department must use FA, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. 
The Department has also determined that because these companies either 
failed to respond to the partial section A questionnaire, or failed to 
respond in a timely manner to the partial section A questionnaire, they 
did not act to the best of their ability to comply with the 
Department's request for information. Without completed questionnaire 
responses, the Department lacks critical information that is necessary 
to the dumping calculation and cannot determine an accurate dumping 
margin. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, the 
Department has used an adverse inference in determining a margin for 
these companies.
    With respect to Master Steel, Master Steel failed to provide, 
within the applicable deadlines, its responses to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaires. See Memorandum Regarding the Application 
of Adverse Facts Available to Master Steel, dated, January 16, 2001 
(Master Steel FA Memo). Despite the Department's repeated attempts, 
pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, to obtain the missing 
information, Master Steel failed to respond in a timely manner. As a 
result, we do not have a reliable home market or U.S. sales listing to 
use for comparison purposes in accordance with our practice. In 
addition, we also question whether Master Steel provided the 
appropriate date of sale for its reported U.S. sales. Moreover, Master 
Steel submitted an incomplete cost response, with deficiencies 
concerning such issues as product specific costs, costs for major 
inputs received from affiliated parties, and the quantity of specific 
CONNUMs produced during the POI. See Master Steel FA Memo. Master Steel 
did not notify the Department that it would be unable to submit the 
requested information, nor did it provide any explanation or propose an 
alternate form of submitting the required data, pursuant to section 
782(c)(1) of the Act. See Master Steel FA Memo.
    We are unable, under the application of section 782(e), to use the 
company-specific information contained in the responses we did receive 
from Master Steel, given that the deadline for submitting the 
supplemental questionnaire responses has passed, and the responses 
currently on record are so incomplete that they cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination. See Master 
Steel FA Memo.
    Because the information that Master Steel failed to report is 
critical for purposes of the preliminary dumping calculations, the 
Department must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching its 
preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and 
(C) of the Act.
    We also find that the application of an adverse inference in this 
case is appropriate. Master Steel failed to provide critical data 
regarding COP, affiliations, accurate control numbers, explanation of 
zero values for certain selling expenses, HM shipment dates, accurate 
HM payment dates, and inter alia clarification regarding its choice for 
date of sale. Moreover, despite the Department's directions in the 
questionnaires and the numerous extensions granted, Master Steel made 
no effort to provide any explanation or propose an alternate form of 
submitting the data. See Master Steel FA Memo. For these reasons, we 
find that Master Steel did not act to the best of its ability in 
responding to the Department's requests for information, see, e.g., 
Circular Stainless Steel Hollow Products, and that, consequently, an 
adverse inference is warranted under section 776(b) of the Act. See 
Master Steel FA Memo.

Ukraine

    In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, for the 
reasons explained below, we preliminarily determine that the use of 
total adverse facts available is warranted with respect to Krovoi Rog 
State Mining and Metal Works (Krivorozhstal). On August 18, 2000, the 
Department issued a nonmarket economy questionnaire to the Embassy of 
Ukraine in Washington, DC and, concurrently, to the five known 
Ukrainian producers of rebar. Questionnaires were sent, specifically, 
to Dneprovsky Iron and Steel Works (Dneprovsky), Makeevsky Iron and 
Steel Works, Kramatorsk Iron and Steel Works, Yenakievsky Iron and 
Steel Works, and Krivorozhstal. By the extended September 22, 2000, 
deadline for responding to the Department's section A questionnaire, we 
received responses from Dneprovsky and Krivorozhstal. Dneprovsky stated 
that the company does not export rebar to the United States. The 
Department received quantity and value data from Krivorozhstal and 
selected Krivorozhstal as the sole mandatory respondent in the Ukraine 
case. Krivorozhstal, over the course of this proceeding, has not 
provided the Department with complete, documented, product-specific 
factors of production information. Accordingly, we are relying on the 
facts otherwise available for purposes of the preliminary 
determination.
    The questionnaire sent to Krivorozhstal on August 18, 2000, 
described in detail how respondents should report factors of production 
data for intermediate products produced by separate production 
processes. On October 10, 2000, Krivorozhstal submitted a section D 
questionnaire response with incomplete factors of production data. On 
October 26, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire and reminded Krivorozhstal of its 
obligation to provide complete factors of production data. On November 
9, 2000, Krivorozhstal responded to the Department's supplemental 
questionnaire and, again, failed to provide complete factors of 
production information. Krivorozhstal's November 9, 2000, response, 
while providing some additional data, did not properly document and 
support with narrative explanation these additional factors of 
production data, again did not provide the Department with product-
specific factors of production and, finally, did not propose an 
appropriate

[[Page 8347]]

alternative methodology for deriving product-specific factors of 
production. See Decision Memorandum to Troy Cribb Regarding the Use of 
Facts Available for the Antidumping Investigation of Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Ukraine (Ukraine FA Memo) (January 16, 2001) for 
further detail regarding the inadequacy of Krivorozhstal's submitted 
data.
    Because Krivorozhstal has refused to provide the Department with a 
full accounting of its factors of production, the Department must use 
facts available under sections 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and (B) of the 
Act. In addition, we consider that Krivorozhstal has not acted to the 
best of its ability to provide complete factors of production 
information, since, as explained above, Krivorozhstal has failed to 
provide basic information readily at its disposal.
2. Selection and Corroboration of Facts Available
    Section 776(b) of the Act states that an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition. See also SAA 
at 829-831. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the 
Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) in 
using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal.
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value (see SAA at 870). The SAA also states that independent 
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation (see SAA at 870).
    In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the 
petitions for use as adverse facts available for purposes of this 
determination, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the 
petitions. In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we examined the key elements of the (EP) and normal value 
(NV) calculations on which the margins in the petitions were based. Our 
review of the EP and NV calculations indicated that the information in 
the petitions has probative value, as certain information included in 
the margin calculations in the petitions is from public sources 
concurrent, for the most part, with the relevant POI. For purposes of 
the preliminary determination, we attempted to further corroborate the 
information in the petition. We re-examined the EP and NV data which 
formed the basis for the highest margin in the petition in light of 
information obtained during the investigation and, to the extent 
practicable, found that it has probative value (see the January 16, 
2001, memoranda to the file regarding Application of Facts Available 
for Huta Ostroweic, S.A. and Stalexport, S.A.; Master Steel FA Memo; 
Corroboration of the Petition Data for Indonesia at section C; and 
Ukraine FA Memo on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099, of the 
Main Commerce Department building).
    Accordingly, in selecting adverse facts available with respect to 
Stalexport, the Department determined to apply a constructed value 
margin rate of 52.07 percent, the highest margin alleged for Poland in 
the petitioner's July 10, 2000, addendum to the petition. For 
Indonesia, as FA for Sakti, Bhirma, Krakatau, Perdana, Hanil, 
Pulogadung and Master Steel, the Department applied a constructed value 
margin rate of 71.01 percent, the highest margin alleged for Indonesia 
in the petitioner's July 10, 2000, addendum to the petition. For 
Ukraine, inasmuch as we have been unable to rely on Krivorozhstal's 
questionnaire responses, we have not determined whether Krivorozhstal 
warrants a separate rate. We have assigned to all exports of subject 
rebar from the Ukraine a country-wide rate of 41.69 percent, the single 
margin alleged in the petitioner's July 10, 2000, addendum to the 
petition.
    Separate Rates--Ukraine. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in a NME country 
a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent from government control so as to be entitled 
to a separate rate. In the case involving Ukraine, the single 
respondent company, Krivorozhstal, has claimed to be sufficiently 
independent to warrant a separate rate. However, since, as explained 
above, Krivorozhstal has impeded the Department's investigation, we 
have not made a determination as to whether Krivorozhstal merits a 
separate rate, and are assigning a single country-wide rate for all 
exporters of subject merchandise from Ukraine.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that, inasmuch as the petition contains only a 
single margin, the same rate would apply to Krivorozhstal and all 
other exporters of subject merchandise from Ukraine, even if 
Krivorozhstal had been assigned a separate rate. In the event that 
the Department is able to base its final determination on the data 
submitted by Krivorozhstal rather than on the facts otherwise 
available, the Department will determine whether Krivorozhstal 
merits a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All Others--Poland and Indonesia. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act 
provides that, where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins 
established for all exporters and producers individually investigated 
are zero or de minimis margins, or are determined entirely under 
section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to 
establish the estimated ``all others'' rate for exporters and producers 
not individually investigated. This provision contemplates that we 
weight-average margins other than facts available margins to establish 
the ``all others'' rate. Where the data do not permit weight-averaging 
such rates, the SAA, at 873, provides that we may use other reasonable 
methods. With respect to Poland and Indonesia, because there is no 
other information on the record on which to base an ``all others'' 
rate, consistent with the Department's practice, we have based the 
``all others'' rate on the simple average of the rates provided by the 
petitioner. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Argentina, Japan and Thailand, 65 FR 5520, 5528 (February 
4, 2000).

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances for Poland and Ukraine when we make our final 
determination regarding sales at LTFV in this investigation, which will 
be no later than 75 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 rebar 
from Indonesia that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. In the case of Poland and Ukraine, because of our 
preliminary affirmative critical circumstances findings in these cases, 
and in accordance with section 733(e) of the Act, we are directing the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of rebar 
from Poland and Ukraine that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days prior to the date 
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. For Poland, 
Indonesia and Ukraine, we are also instructing the Customs Service to 
require a cash deposit or the posting of

[[Page 8348]]

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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poland:
  Huta Ostrowiec S.A. (``Stalexport'').....................        52.07
  All Others...............................................        47.13
Indonesia:
  Sakti....................................................        71.01
  Bhirma...................................................        71.01
  Krakatau.................................................        71.01
  Perdana..................................................        71.01
  Hanil....................................................        71.01
  Pulogadung...............................................        71.01
  Tunggal..................................................        71.01
  Master Steel.............................................        71.01
  All Others...............................................        60.46
Ukraine:
  Ukraine-Wide Rate........................................        41.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determinations. If our final antidumping determinations are 
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 these preliminary determinations or 45 days after the 
date of our final determinations.

Public Comment

    For the investigations of steel concrete reinforcing bars from 
Poland, Indonesia, and Ukraine, case briefs must be submitted no later 
than 35 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five business 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. Public 
versions of all comments and rebuttals should be provided to the 
Department and made available 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 several rebar cases, 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. If these 
investigations proceed normally, we will make our final determinations 
in the investigations of steel concrete reinforcing bars from Poland, 
Indonesia and Ukraine no later than 75 days after the date 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. 01-2522 Filed 1-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P