[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22204-22209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10856]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-835]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Taiwan

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair 
value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Tran or Robert James at (202) 
482-1121 and (202) 482-0649, respectively, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain hot-rolled carbon steel 
flat products from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in Section 
733 of the Tariff Act. The estimated margin of sales at LTFV is shown 
in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

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 to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act) by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (Department) 
regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1, 2000).

Case History

    On December 4, 2000, the Department initiated antidumping 
investigations of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from 
Argentina, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the People's 
Republic of China, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and 
Ukraine. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, India, 
Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the People's Republic of China, 
Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine, 65 FR 77568 
(December 12,

[[Page 22205]]

2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of this investigation, 
the following events have occurred.
    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice at 
77569. We received no comments from any parties in this investigation. 
However, we did receive comment in the hot-rolled investigation 
regarding the Netherlands as follows: from Duracell Global Business 
Management Group on December 11, 2000; from Energizer on December 15, 
2000; from Bouffard Metal Goods Inc. and Truelove & MacLean, Inc. on 
December 18, 2000; from the Corus Group plc., which includes Corus 
Steel USA (CSUSA) and Corus Staal BV (Corus Staal), and Thomas Steel 
Strip on December 26, 2000; and from Rayovac Corporation on March 12, 
2001.
    On December 22, 2000, the Department issued a letter to interested 
parties in all of the concurrent HR products antidumping 
investigations, providing an opportunity to comment on the Department's 
proposed model matching characteristics and hierarchy. Comments were 
submitted by: petitioners (January 5, 2001); Corus Staal BV and Corus 
Steel USA Inc., (Corus), respondent in the Netherlands investigation 
(January 3, 2001); Iscor Limited (Iscor), respondent in the South 
Africa investigation (January 3, 2001); and Zaporizhstal, respondent in 
the Ukraine investigation (January 3, 2001). Petitioners agreed with 
the Department's proposed characteristics and hierarchy of 
characteristics. Corus suggested adding a product characteristic to 
distinguish prime merchandise from non-prime merchandise. Neither Iscor 
nor Zaporizhstal proposed any changes to either the list of product 
characteristics proposed by the Department or the hierarchy of those 
product characteristics but, rather, provided information relating to 
its own products that was not relevant in the context of determining 
what information to include in the Department's questionnaires. For 
purposes of the questionnaires subsequently issued by the Department to 
the respondents, no changes were made to the product characteristics or 
the hierarchy of those characteristics from those originally proposed 
by the Department in its December 22, 2000 letter. With respect to 
Corus' request, the additional product characteristic suggested by 
Corus, to distinguish prime from non-prime merchandise, is unnecessary. 
The Department already asks respondents to distinguish prime from non-
prime merchandise in field number 2.2 ``Prime vs. Secondary 
Merchandise.'' See the Department's Antidumping Duty Questionnaire, at 
B-7 and C-7. These fields are used in the model match program to 
prevent matches of prime merchandise to non-prime merchandise.
    On December 28, 2000, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary 
injury determination on imports of subject merchandise from Taiwan. On 
January 4, 2001, the ITC published its preliminary determination that 
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States 
is materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise 
from Taiwan (66 FR 805).
    On January 4, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to China Steel Corporation (China Steel), Yieh Loong 
Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Loong), and An Feng Steel Co., Ltd. (An 
Feng). On February 2, 2001, the Department received from China Steel 
and Yieh Loong the response to Section A of the questionnaire. (An Feng 
never responded to any of the Department's questionnaires. See the 
section ``Facts Available'' (below).) On February 15, 2001 and February 
21, 2001, the petitioners filed comments on the Section A responses of 
both China Steel and Yieh Loong. On February 27, 2001 the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire for China Steel's and Yieh Loong's 
Section A responses. The two companies submitted their responses on 
March 20, 2001. China Steel made additional submissions in follow-up to 
its March 20, 2001 response on March 21 and March 26, 2001.
    China Steel and Yieh Loong filed their Section B, C, and D 
responses on February 26, 2001. On March 6, 2001 petitioners submitted 
comments on the Section B, C, and D responses of China Steel and Yieh 
Loong. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to China 
Steel and Yieh Loong regarding their Section B and C responses on March 
15, 2001. On April 3, 2001, China Steel and Yieh Loong filed their 
supplemental Section B and C responses. On March 16, 2001, petitioners 
submitted additional comments regarding China Steel's Section D 
response. On March 21, 2001, petitioners filed additional comments 
regarding Yieh Loong's Section D response. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires concerning Yieh Loong's Section D response 
on March 21, 2001, and concerning China Steel's Section D response on 
March 23, 2001. The Department received the responses to these 
supplemental questionnaires on April 9, 2001.
    On April 17, 2001 and April 18, 2001, the Department issued another 
supplementary questionnaire to China Steel and Yieh Loong regarding 
their Section B, C and D responses. We have set a due date of April 23, 
2001 for the responses.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 1999 through 
September 30, 2000.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are 
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, 
of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated 
with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with 
plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in 
successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in 
straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width 
measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., 
flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 
width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness 
of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) 
of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of 
these investigations.
    Specifically included within the scope of these investigations are 
vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as 
interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, 
and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized 
as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as 
titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, 
added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are 
recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as 
chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for 
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such 
as silicon and aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of these investigations, 
regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by 
weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon 
content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    1.80 percent of manganese, or

[[Page 22206]]

    2.25 percent of silicon, or
    1.00 percent of copper, or
    0.50 percent of aluminum, or
    1.25 percent of chromium, or
    0.30 percent of cobalt, or
    0.40 percent of lead, or
    1.25 percent of nickel, or
    0.30 percent of tungsten, or
    0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
    0.10 percent of niobium, or
    0.15 percent of vanadium, or
    0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of these investigations unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are 
outside or specifically excluded from the scope of these 
investigations:

     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A543, 
A387, A514, A517, A506).
     Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & 
Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTSUS.

    The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in 
the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products covered by these investigations, including: vacuum degassed 
fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor 
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.

Affiliations

    In the dumping petition the petitioners identified An Feng, China 
Steel, and Yieh Loong as the principal Taiwanese producers of subject 
merchandise. We issued questionnaires to these three companies on 
January 4, 2001. (See the ``Case History'' section (above).) Upon 
analysis of the responses of China Steel and Yieh Loong, we have 
determined that these two companies are affiliated under Section 
771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act. The Department has collapsed China Steel 
and Yieh Loong (hereafter referred to as ``China Steel'') pursuant to 
Section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations for purposes of 
calculating a weighted-average margin. For details of the Department's 
analysis, see the Affiliation Memorandum, April 19, 2001, a copy of 
which is in room B-099 at the main Department of Commerce building. 
Therefore, the rate that we have assigned to China Steel (Yieh Loong's 
parent company) in this preliminary determination will be applicable to 
both China Steel and Yieh Loong.

Facts Available

An Feng

    As noted above under ``Case History,'' An Feng failed to respond to 
the Department's antidumping questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the 
Tariff Act provides that ``if an interested party or any other person 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering 
authority or the Commission under this title, (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in 
the from 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 subsection 782(d), use the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.'' 
Because An Feng failed to respond to our request for information, 
pursuant to Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act we resorted to the 
facts otherwise available to calculate the dumping margin for this 
company.
    Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department may 
use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party that has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with the Department's requests for necessary information. See also 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316 (1994) (SAA) at 870. Failure by An Feng to respond to the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire constitutes a failure to act to 
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information within 
the meaning of Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. Because An Feng failed 
to respond and offered no explanation for its failure, the Department 
has determined that, in selecting among the facts otherwise available, 
an adverse inference is warranted in selecting the facts available for 
this company. Because we are unable to calculate a margin for An Feng, 
consistent with our practice, we have assigned An Feng the highest 
margin alleged based on our recalculation of the petition margins. See 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and 
Pressure Pipe from Japan and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy 
Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and the Republic 
of South Africa, 64 FR 69718, 69722 (December 14, 1999), and Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod from Germany, 63 FR 10847, 10848 (March 5, 1998)) and 
Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Angle from Japan, Korea, and Spain, 66 FR 2880, 2883 
(January 12, 2001). Based on amendments to the petition and the 
Department's recalculations, where applicable, the highest margin is 
29.14 percent. See Initiation Notice at 77576.

[[Page 22207]]

    Section 776(b) of the Tariff 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 Tariff Act provides that, when 
the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) 
as 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, U.S. Customs Service 
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the 
particular proceeding. Id. 
    To corroborate the margin calculations in the petition, we examined 
the data relied upon in making those calculations. The export prices 
(EP) in the petition were based on import values compiled by the U.S. 
Customs Service. These data, as recalculated by the Department using 
POI-wide and nation-wide averages for initiation purposes, are from 
publicly available sources (i.e., official U.S. government statistics). 
Therefore, we find that the U.S. price from the petition margin is 
sufficiently corroborated.
    For the normal value (NV) calculation, petitioners relied upon 
constructed value (CV), consisting of cost of manufacture (COM), 
selling, general, administrative expenses (SG&A), interest, packing, 
and profit. Petitioners based depreciation, interest, SG&A, packing, 
and profit on publicly available financial statements of Taiwan steel 
producers. Therefore, because these data are based on publicly 
available financial statements, we find them to be sufficiently 
corroborated. Petitioners based COM (net of depreciation) on their own 
cost experience of producing merchandise identical to that subject to 
this investigation. To corroborate these data, we compared it to the 
reported COM of China Steel and its affiliate Yieh Loong. Although we 
have found that these companies control numbers (CONNUMs) were mostly 
unusable, we were still able to make a reliable comparison with the 
petitioner's COM data for corroboration purposes. We performed this 
comparison by first calculating the average COM for all of the CONNUMs 
China Steel and Yieh Loong reported in their CV databases provided with 
their April 9, 2001 submissions, and comparing that average to the COM 
petitioners provided in their submission of November 22, 2000, exhibit 
I-14. Our analysis showed that the petitioners' reported costs were 
reasonably close to the data submitted by China Steel and Yieh Loong. 
Based on this analysis, we find that the COM data used in the 
antidumping petition have probative value. See Corroboration 
Memorandum, April 23, 2001.

China Steel

    On January 4, 2001, the Department issued China Steel its 
antidumping duty questionnaire. The questionnaire explicitly instructed 
to China Steel to report all sales by affiliates to the first 
unaffiliated customer. However, if sales to all affiliated customers 
constituted less than five percent of its total sales in the home 
market these companies were to notify the Department. On January 19, 
2001, China Steel requested to exclude themselves from reporting home 
market resales by affiliates. China Steel stated that its sales to its 
affiliates, China Steel Global Trading Corporation (China Steel Global) 
and China Steel Chemical Corporation (China Steel Chemical), 
constituted less than five percent of its total sales in the home 
market. On January 29, 2001, the Department replied to China Steel's 
January 19, 2001 letter and stated that we could not make a 
determination based on the information provided. The Department 
requested that China Steel document whether the total quantity of 
subject merchandise sold to all affiliated parties (regardless of 
whether subject merchandise was further processed by affiliates) 
constituted less than five percent of total home market sales. China 
Steel failed to provide such information.
    On February 26, 2001, China Steel submitted its response to 
Sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire. In this submission, China 
Steel only reported affiliated party sales for the companies it 
considered to be affiliated entities, and China Steel did not provide 
resales by these affiliates. China Steel coded sales to Yieh Loong, 
Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Hsing) and Yieh Phui Enterprise 
Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui) as sales to non-affiliated companies. Because the 
Department collapsed China Steel and Yieh Loong, any reseller 
affiliated with either China Steel or Yieh Loong is recognized as 
affiliated with the collapsed entity (China Steel/ Yieh Loong). See 
Affiliation Memorandum, April 19, 2001. Therefore, because of Yieh 
Phui's and Yieh Hsing's affiliation to Yieh Loong, they are affiliated 
with the collapsed entity, and total affiliated party sales are greater 
than five percent of total home market sales. See Affiliated Reseller 
Memorandum, April 19, 2001.
    On March 15, 2001, the Department issued its supplemental Sections 
B and C questionnaire, reiterating that China Steel must report all 
resales by affiliated parties (Yieh Loong, China Steel Chemical, China 
Steel Global, Yieh Phui, and Yieh Hsing) to the first unaffiliated 
party.
    China Steel's April 3, 2001 supplemental response provided 
incomplete and deficient information regarding affiliated parties' 
resales. Although China Steel provided complete sales information for 
China Steel Global and China Steel Chemical, it provided minimal sales 
information for Yieh Phui and Yieh Hsing, and inconsistent information 
regarding Yieh Loong. Sales to China Steel's affiliates constitute a 
significant quantity of China Steel's home market sales, and it is 
necessary to have this information in order for the Department to 
calculate a margin. See Adverse Facts Available Memorandum, April 23, 
2001.
    Pursuant to Section 782(c) of the Act, China Steel, after receiving 
a request from the Department, must promptly notify the Department if 
it is unable to submit the information requested, together with a full 
explanation and suggest alternative forms in which it is able to submit 
the requested information to the Department. The Department has 
repeatedly requested China Steel to provide complete information with 
respect to its downstream sales as originally instructed in the January 
4, 2001 antidumping questionnaire. The Department has granted a number 
of extensions to China Steel and Yieh Loong to permit them to provide 
complete and accurate questionnaire responses. China Steel stated in 
its April 3, 2001 narrative that it does not control Yieh Hsing and 
Yieh Phui; therefore, it could not provide complete and adequate 
information. China Steel has never suggested any alternative reporting 
methodology. However, the Department finds that China Steel and Yieh 
Loong's ability to compel their affiliates to turn over some of the 
business proprietary information requested by the Department is a clear 
indication of their ability to exercise control over these parties.
    Pursuant to Section 776(A)(B) of the Act, we find that China Steel 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it repeatedly 
refused or ignored the Department's instructions to submit accurate 
downstream sales data, did not supply missing sales data, as 
demonstrated by its selective

[[Page 22208]]

submission of China Steel's affiliates' data, and never provided 
alternatives or reasonable explanations for why it could not report all 
downstream sales. Further, without this data, the information regarding 
home market sales is unusable. A significant quantity of China Steel's 
home market sales are made through affiliates. Without this information 
the Department cannot calculate an accurate dumping margin.
    In addition, the Department found other deficiencies that made 
China Steel's submission unusable for purposes of calculating a dumping 
margin. The principal deficiency was the failure to report certain 
product characteristics, e.g., quality, carbon content, yield strength, 
thickness, and width for a significant share of China Steel's sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers. The Department requires the 
physical characteristics of paint, quality, carbon, yield strength, 
thickness, width, cut-to-length versus coiled, tempered rolled, 
pickled, edge trim, and patterns in order to match the product to its 
appropriate match in the United States, to ascertain whether the home 
market merchandise was sold at prices above the cost of production, and 
to calculate a difference-in-merchandise adjustment. Therefore, without 
complete physical characteristics for all sales, we cannot calculate an 
accurate margin.
    Moreover, we find that China Steel's claim that it is unable to 
provide proper physical characteristics in the manner requested by the 
Department to be inconsistent with other information on the record of 
this case. For example, China Steel stated in its April 3, 2001 
submission that physical characteristics (e.g., carbon, yield strength) 
can be identified from production records and inventory records as well 
as its product code system. In addition, China Steel states that it is 
still able to calculate cost for some merchandise for which it did not 
report complete physical characteristics. It is unclear from the record 
why China Steel cannot provide physical characteristics for certain 
sales, yet still associates costs to those same sales. Moreover, China 
Steel never provided any supporting documentation in regards to the 
sales at issue, despite the Department's request in a supplemental 
questionnaire that it do so. Without this documentation the Department 
is unable to determine the accuracy of China Steel's responses 
regarding this merchandise. See Adverse Facts Available Memorandum, 
April 23, 2001.
    Therefore, because of these deficiencies, on April 17 and April 18, 
2001, we issued to these companies a supplemental questionnaire, the 
response for which is due April 23, 2001. We will analyze the responses 
to this supplemental questionnaire and issue our analysis, if 
appropriate, concurrent with the final determination of this 
investigation.
    In light of China Steel's repeated failure to provide affiliated 
sales information and its repeated failure to provide all necessary 
product characteristics or to provide any meaningful explanation of why 
such data could not be provided, we preliminarily determine that China 
Steel did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, for 
the purpose of this preliminary determination we have assigned, as 
adverse facts available, the highest margin from the antidumping 
petition as recalculated by the Department. See the December 4, 2000, 
Import Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist at 25, a 
copy of which is contained in the public file in room B-099 of the main 
Department of Commerce building. We consider the data from the petition 
to be corroborated for the reasons given above in discussing the use of 
the petition as the basis for adverse facts available for An Feng.

All Others

    The estimated all-others rate is equal to the average of the 
dumping margins calculated in the antidumping duty petition as 
recalculated by the Department. See the December 4, 2000, Import 
Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with Section 733(d) of the Tariff Act, the Department 
will direct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries 
of subject merchandise from Taiwan that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall require a 
cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary 
dumping margin indicated in the chart below. This suspension of 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
    The margins in the preliminary determination are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Exporter/manufacturer                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Steel Corporation (including Yieh Loong)...............      29.14
An Feng Steel Co., Ltd.......................................      29.14
All Others...................................................      20.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with Section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have 
notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is 
affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after 
the date of this preliminary determination, or 45 days after our final 
determination, whether these imports are causing, or threatening, 
material injury to the U.S. industry.

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 Tariff 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 hot-rolled 
carbon steel flat products 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 
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 
30 days of the publication of this notice. 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 publication of this preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
section 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Since January 20, 2001, 
Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

[[Page 22209]]

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: April 23, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-10856 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P