[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41509-41517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19780]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-831]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils From Taiwan.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel sheet and strip in coils (``SSSS'') from Taiwan in response to 
requests from respondents Yieh United Steel Corporation (YUSCO), Tung 
Mung Development Co., Ltd. (Tung Mung) and Chia Far Industries Co., 
Ltd. (Chia Far), and petitioners \1\ who requested a review of YUSCO, 
Tung Mung, and Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Company Ltd. (Ta Chen), and any 
of its affiliates within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). This review covers imports of 
subject merchandise from YUSCO, Tung Mung, Ta Chen, and Chia Far. The 
period of review (``POR'') is June 8, 1999 through June 30, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation (formerly Armco, 
Inc.), J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, Butler-
Armco Independent Union Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the 
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our preliminary results of review indicate that Chia Far has sold 
subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during the POR, 
and that YUSCO and Tung Mung did not make any sales below normal value 
during the POR. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to 
rescind the review with respect to Ta Chen because it had no shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service to assess antidumping duties on suspended entries on all 
appropriate entries.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 
should also submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Panfeld (Ta Chen); Stephen 
Shin (Chia Far); Stephen Bailey (YUSCO), Mesbah Motamed (Tung Mung); or 
Rick Johnson, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0172, (202) 
482-0413, (202) 482-1102, (202) 482-1382 or (202) 482-3818, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

Background

    On July 20, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from 
Taiwan. See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

[[Page 41510]]

Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 65 FR 45035 (July 20, 
2000). On July 28, 2000, petitioners requested a review of YUSCO, Tung 
Mung and Ta Chen and its affiliates within the meaning of section 
771(33) of the Act. See Petitioners: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Taiwan: Request for Administrative Review of Antidumping 
Duty Order, July 28, 2000. On July 26, 2000, YUSCO, a producer and 
exporter of subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(b)(2), requested an administrative review of the 
antidumping order covering the period June 8, 1999, through June 30, 
2000. See YUSCO: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 
Request for Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, July 26, 
2000. On July 31, 2000, Tung Mung and Chia Far, producers and exporters 
of subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(2), requested an administrative review of the antidumping 
order covering the period June 8, 1999, through June 30, 2000. See Chia 
Far: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Request for 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, July 31, 2000; See 
Tung Mung: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 
Request for Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, July 31, 
2000. On September 6, 2000, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of this order. 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 65 FR 53980 (September 6, 
2000). The initiation was amended on November 30, 2000 to include the 
name of Chia Far. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 71299 (November 30, 2000).
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit. On January 8, 2001, the Department extended the 
time limit for the preliminary results in this review to July 1, 2001. 
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Extension of 
Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 2884 (January 12, 2001). On May 14, 2001, 
the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary in this 
review for an additional 30 days. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 
in Coils From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 28147 (May 
22, 2001). The preliminary results are now due for signature on July 
31, 2001.
    On September 28, 2000, and in subsequent submissions on October 4, 
12, and 31, 2000, Ta Chen informed the Department that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period 
of review (POR). We have confirmed this with the U.S. Customs Service. 
See Memorandum from Michael Panfeld to the File: U.S. Customs Data 
Query for Entries During the 1999-2000 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan, July 
31, 2001 (``the Customs memo'').
    Ta Chen has also stated that its U.S. affiliate (``TCI'') had 
resales of SSSS from Taiwan during the POR. However, Ta Chen has stated 
that these sales were from inventory that was entered into the United 
States prior to the suspension of liquidation. The Department has 
previously determined that ``(s)ales of merchandise that can be 
demonstrably linked with entries prior to the suspension of liquidation 
are not subject merchandise and therefore are not subject to review by 
the Department.'' See Certain Stainless Wire Rods From France: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 47874, 47875 
(September 11, 1996); see also Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27314 (May 19, 1997).
    Ta Chen has certified that of TCI's resales of Taiwanese 
merchandise from its U.S. warehouse inventory during the POR, all 
merchandise entered before the POR. The Department's Customs inquiry 
indicates that such merchandise did not enter the United States after 
the suspension of liquidation. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily 
rescinding our review for Ta Chen. For further discussion, see the 
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales 
information provided by Chia Far, from June 16, 2001 to June 22, 2001, 
using standard verification procedures, including an examination of 
relevant sales, cost, and financial records, and selection of original 
documentation containing relevant information. In addition, we verified 
sales information provided by Tung Mung and YUSCO from April 25, 2001 
to May 2, 2001 and from June 25, 2001 to June 29, 2001, respectively. 
Our verification results are outlined in the public version of the 
verification reports and are on file in the Central Records Unit 
(``CRU'') located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce 
Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81 , 
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 
7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 
7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 
7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 
7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 
7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 
7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the

[[Page 41511]]

Department's written description of the merchandise covered by this 
order is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness 
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent 
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties, the Department also 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products were 
excluded from the scope of the investigation and the subsequent order. 
These excluded products are described below.
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (``ASTM'') specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (``UNS'') as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 
13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\5\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420, but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer

[[Page 41512]]

processing, and is supplied as, for example, ``GIN6''.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \6\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' ``GIN6'' are the proprietary grades of 
Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Ta Chen informed the Department that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
We have confirmed this with the U.S. Customs Service. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the 
Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with 
respect to Ta Chen. See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube 
from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998); and Certain 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (Oct. 14, 
1997).

Facts Available (FA)

1. Application of FA

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if any interested party: 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping 
investigation; or (D) provides such information but the information 
cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts otherwise available 
in making its determination. Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, if 
the Department:

``determines that a response to a request for information under this 
title does not comply with the request, the administering authority 
[* * *] shall promptly inform the person submitting the response of 
the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, 
provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the 
deficiency in light of the time limits established for the 
completion of investigations or reviews under this title. If that 
person submits further information in response to such deficiency 
and either (1) the administering authority [* * *] finds that such 
response is not satisfactory, or (2) such response is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, then the administering authority 
[* * *] may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or part of the 
original and subsequent responses.''

As shown below, in the case of Chia Far, the Department gave the 
respondent several opportunities to correct deficient submissions, 
however, Chia Far did not adequately correct the significant problems 
on the record. Thus, for the reasons discussed in more detail below, 
the Department has determined a dumping margin based on the facts 
available.
Chia Far
    On September 7, 2000, the Department sent Chia Far a questionnaire 
requesting that it provide information regarding any sales that it made 
to the United States during the POR. On October 12, 2000 and November 
1, 2000, Chia Far submitted its Section A and Section C responses to 
the Department in which the company claimed that Chia Far was not 
affiliated with any of its U.S. customers and that all U.S. sales 
should be classified as EP sales. Based on these responses, the 
Department had no reason to believe that any affiliation issues existed 
between Chia Far and its U.S. customers. On May 24, 2001 petitioners 
submitted an allegation that Chia Far is affiliated by virtue of a 
principal/agent relationship with one of its U.S. customers. See 
Petitioners' Submission Re: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Taiwan, May 24, 2001. Based on petitioners' allegation, the 
Department sent a questionnaire on May 25, 2001 requesting that Chia 
Far answer questions concerning its relationship with this U.S. 
customer during the POR and affording Chia Far an additional 
opportunity to report its sales to this U.S. customer as CEP sales. 
Chia Far stated that it was not affiliated with the U.S. customer as 
affiliation is defined in Appendix I of the Department's questionnaire. 
See Chia Far's Supplemental Response, June 4, 2001, at 6--8. On June 
18, 2001, petitioners submitted comments on Chia Far's June 4, 2001 
supplemental response, documenting a relationship of principal/agent 
between Chia Far and this certain U.S. customer. See Petitioners' 
Submission Re: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, 
June 18, 2001, at 13-14.
    During the course of verification, Chia Far made verbal claims that 
it had evidence rebutting the information provided in petitioners' June 
18, 2001 submission and that it intended to submit such information on 
the record. See Chia Far Sales Verification Report to Edward Yang 
through Rick Johnson (``Sales Verification Report''), July 11, 2001 at 
page 7. However, Chia Far failed to provide the Department with such 
information. Thus, no information affirmatively refuting Chia Far's 
principal/agent relationship, as documented in petitioners' submission, 
was ever placed on the record and pursuant to the time limits specified 
in section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, the deadline 
for submitting new factual information has passed.
    In determining whether a principal/agent relationship exists, the 
Department first examines whether an explicit agreement exists from the 
alleged principal, authorizing the agent to act on its behalf in a 
specified context. This agreement must not only state that such a 
relationship exists, but the alleged agent must expressly consent to 
such representation on behalf of the principal. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Engineered Process Gas 
Turbo-Compressor Systems, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, and Whether 
Complete or Incomplete, from Japan (``Gas Turbo Compressors''), 62 FR 
24392, 24402-24403 (May 5, 1997) (expressing the principal/agent test). 
However, the Department also recognizes that while agency relationships 
are ``frequently established by a written contract, this is not 
essential.'' See id at 24403. In the absence of an agency contract, the 
Department usually examines the following five criteria as outlined in 
Gas Turbo Compressors in considering whether a principal/agent 
relationship exists:
    1. the foreign producer's role in negotiating price and other terms 
of sale;
    2. the extent of the foreign producer's interaction with the U.S. 
customer;
    3. whether the agent/reseller maintains inventory;
    4. whether the agent/reseller takes title to the merchandise and 
bears the risk of loss; and 5. whether the agent/reseller further 
processes or otherwise adds value to the merchandise.
See id. As shown in Gas Turbo Compressors, the Department examines 
these criteria to determine whether the principal company ``effectively 
controlled the price'' in the transaction with the U.S. customer, 
whether the principal company's identity ``was disclosed,'' whether the 
agent ``maintain(s) inventory of, or further processes, the subject 
merchandise,'' and the extent of contact between the principal and the 
agent's end-customer. See id.
    In the case at hand, the Department found correspondence at 
verification which appears to document that Chia Far's relationship 
with the U.S. customer satisfies the criteria for a principal/agent 
relationship. Because of the proprietary nature of this issue, for 
further discussion, please see Preliminary Determination in the First 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan: 
Adverse

[[Page 41513]]

Facts Available Corroboration Memorandum, to Edward Yang through Rick 
Johnson (``AFA Memo: Chia Far''), July 31, 2001, at 2-4.
    Based on the record evidence and facts appearing on the record of 
this review, the Department therefore considers Chia Far to be 
affiliated with the U.S. customer in question.
    The Department notes that pursuant to the requirements of section 
782(d) of the Act, Chia Far was given several opportunities to disclose 
information concerning its relationship with this U.S. customer (i.e.,  
its Section A, Section B, and June 4, 2001 responses and its rebuttal 
to petitioners' initial allegation) but did not do so. Because Chia Far 
withheld this information, which would have allowed the Department to 
explore this issue in a more timely fashion, the Department was unable 
to explore the affiliation issue concerning this customer through 
additional supplemental questionnaires. As noted earlier, after 
petitioners' initial allegation, the Department again afforded Chia Far 
the opportunity to report this information. See Department's 
Supplemental Questionnaire, May 25, 2001. Thus, the Department finds 
that Chia Far possessed opportunities to correct, explain, and refute 
all the evidence on the record.
    As a result, the record evidence and facts of the review show that 
Chia Far is affiliated with this U.S. customer. However, Chia Far's 
present database incorrectly reported sales to this customer as EP 
sales and did not include the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser 
from this agent, nor does it contain the necessary data for CEP 
adjustments. Without this information, the Department is unable to 
accurately calculate a dumping margin. Moreover, because Chia Far has 
failed to respond accurately to the Department's initial Section A and 
Section C questionnaires and supplemental questionnaires, the 
Department is unable to further explore this issue within the statutory 
deadlines for completing this review.
    Chia Far has reported sales to this agent as EP sales. Thus, the 
Department does not have Chia Far's sales to the first unaffiliated 
U.S. customer or the corresponding sales information necessary to 
calculate U.S. price. Moreover, because EP sales are reported based 
upon entry date into the United States during the POR while CEP sales 
are reported based upon a date of sale by the U.S. affiliate during the 
POR, a change in classification from EP to CEP may well result in a 
different universes of sales being reported. Consequently, Chia Far's 
response may be both inaccurate, in terms of reporting appropriate U.S. 
prices, and incomplete in terms of the sales which were reported.
    Furthermore, sales to this agent make up a significant proportion 
of Chia Far's total reported sales to the United States during the POR. 
For the remaining sales, the number and volume of sales are 
insignificant in comparison to the volume of sales through Chia Far's 
affiliate. Thus, there is no reason to believe that Chia Far's sales to 
other U.S. customers would significantly reflect Chia Far's U.S. 
selling practices. Therefore, the Department finds that it is necessary 
to apply facts available to all of Chia Far's U.S. sales during the 
POR. For a further discussion, please see AFA Memo: Chia Far.

2. Selection of Adverse FA

    When the Department finds that a party has not participated in a 
review to the ``best of its ability,'' it may apply adverse facts 
available. Section 776(b) of the Act provides:

    ``If the administering authority [* * *] finds that an 
interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority [* * *], the administering authority [* * 
*], in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may 
use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available.''

See also Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) (discussing 
the need to apply adverse facts available when a party does not 
participate to the ``best of its ability''). Section 776(b) further 
states that an adverse inference may include reliance on information 
derived from the petition, the final determinational results of prior 
reviews, or any other information placed on the record. In addition, 
the SAA establishes that the Department may employ an adverse inference 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. 
In employing adverse inferences, the SAA instructs the Department to 
consider ``the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of 
cooperation.'' The Department is further guided by the CIT decision in 
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 118 F. Supp.2d 1366, 1378-79 (Oct. 
26, 2000) in which the Court directed that to apply an adverse 
inference in selecting from the facts available, the Department must 
find that a respondent did not comply with the agency's information 
requests in a manner consistent with the behavior of a reasonable 
respondent.
Chia Far
    Chia Far explicitly denied on two occasions that it had a 
principle/agency relationship with this U.S. customer. In fact, in one 
response Chia Far stated:

    Chia Far and this customer do not have, did not have in the POR, 
and did not have prior to the POR a principal/agent relationship, 
either in fact (via an agency contract) or in theory.

See Chia Far's Reply to Petitioners' Comments Re: CEP Sales, May 17, 
2001, at 2. The evidence on the record, however, indicates that several 
years ago, a principle/agency relationship was formed between Chia Far 
and this U.S. customer. No evidence on the record refutes that this 
relationship existed in the past or continues to exist to this day. In 
fact, information found at verification appeared to further support the 
argument that such a relationship continued to exist throughout the 
POR.
    Because the Department finds that Chia Far did not supply us with 
accurate and complete information, and, in fact, provided us with 
inaccurate and misleading information, we determine that Chia Far did 
not cooperate by complying with our requests for information and did 
not provide information on the level of that of a ``reasonable 
respondent.'' We therefore find that Chia Far did not act to the ``best 
of its ability'' in responding to the Department's questionnaires, and 
in order to ensure that it does not benefit from its lack of 
cooperation, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that a 
total adverse inference is warranted in selecting from among the facts 
otherwise available.
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse FA rate from 
among the possible sources of information has been to ensure that the 
margin is sufficiently adverse so ``as to effectuate the purpose of the 
FA rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete 
and accurate information in a timely manner.'' Static Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation from Chia Far in future reviews, we have assigned to 
Chia Far, as total adverse FA, the highest margin from the 
investigation for Taiwan of 34.95 percent. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip from Taiwan, 64 FR 30592 (June 8, 1999) (``Taiwan SSSS'').

[[Page 41514]]

Corroboration
    Information from prior segments of the proceeding, such as involved 
here, constitutes ``secondary information'' under section 776(c) of the 
Act. Secondary information is described in the SAA as ``information 
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or 
review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any 
previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' 
SAA at 870. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information 
used for FA by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See id. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 
Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 
Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (``TRBs''), to 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used. Although the investigation rate of 34.95 percent constitutes 
secondary information, the information has already been corroborated in 
the LTFV investigation. During the investigation, the Department 
examined the accuracy and adequacy of the price-to-price information in 
the petition and corroborated the price-to-price petition comparison. 
Additionally, during the investigation, the Department examined the 
accuracy and adequacy of the key elements of middleman dumping 
calculations on which the middleman dumping petition was based, and 
corroborated this information. See Taiwan SSSS at 30599-30600; See also 
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18439, 18441 (April 9, 
2001) (employing a petition rate used as adverse FA in a previous 
segment as the adverse FA in the current review). Nothing on the record 
of the instant review calls into question the reliability of this rate. 
Furthermore, although this rate stems from a middleman dumping 
analysis, we note that it nonetheless represents the facts available 
regarding the price levels which Chia Far might sell at in competing 
with other producers of Taiwan in the U.S. and Taiwan markets. Thus, we 
find the rate is reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration in this 
review for adverse FA, the Department stated in TRBs that it will 
``consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there 
are circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse FA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin.'' See TRBs at 57392; See also Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest 
margin in the case as best information available because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an extremely high margin). The Department finds that the 
administrative record of this review does not contain information which 
indicates that the application of this rate would be inappropriate in 
the instant review or that the margin is not relevant. Furthermore, the 
rate has not been judicially invalidated. Thus, we are applying, as 
adverse FA, the 34.95 percent margin from the original investigation of 
sales at LTFV, and have satisfied the corroboration requirements under 
section 776(c) of the Act. See AFA Memo: Chia Far at 5-7.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether respondent's sales of subject merchandise from 
Taiwan to the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared the export price (``EP'') and constructed export price 
(``CEP''), as appropriate, to the NV, as described in the ``Constructed 
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In 
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly 
weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP and 
CEP transactions. We made corrections to reported U.S. and home market 
sales data based on the Department's findings at verification, as 
appropriate.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the Scope of the Review section above, which were 
produced and sold by YUSCO and Tung Mung in the home market during the 
POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on 
the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in 
the Department's questionnaire.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

YUSCO
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price (``EP'') 
is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed 
to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter 
of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States. In accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price (``CEP'') is the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 
sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by 
or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or 
by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser 
not affiliated with the producer or exporter.
    For purposes of this review, YUSCO has classified its sales as 
export price (``EP'') sales. In alleging that its U.S. sales should be 
considered EP sales, YUSCO stated that ``(it) sold subject merchandise 
directly to an importer in the United States during the POR. The 
Department, therefore, should treat YUSCO's U.S. sales as export price 
sales.'' See YUSCO's September 28, 2000 Section A Questionnaire 
Response (Section A response), at 2.
    Based on the information on the record, we are using export price 
as defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was 
sold, prior to importation, by YUSCO 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. YUSCO identified one channel of distribution for U.S. sales 
(sales to an unaffiliated U.S. distributor) for its U.S. sales during 
the POR. We based EP on packed prices to Ta Chen International 
(``TCI''), a U.S. distributor, for export to the United States. We made 
deductions for inland freight (from YUSCO's plant to the port of 
export), international freight, marine insurance, container handling 
fees, certification handling fees, and foreign brokerage and

[[Page 41515]]

handling in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
Tung Mung
    The Department treated each of Tung Mung's U.S. market transactions 
as EP sales because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, by 
Tung Mung 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. We based EP on 
the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We 
made deductions for domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, 
harbor duty, bank charges, international ocean freight, and marine 
insurance (where applicable). Additionally, we added to the U.S. price 
an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act. See Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Analysis Memorandum for Tung 
Mung, from Edward C. Yang to Joseph Spetrini, July 31, 2001, for a 
further discussion of this issue.

Normal Value

    For YUSCO and Tung Mung, we compared the aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product 
sold in Taiwan was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act, to form a basis for NV. Because the volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise for all three companies, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based the 
determination of NV upon the home market sales of the foreign like 
product. Thus, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like 
product was first sold for consumption in Taiwan, in the usual 
commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the 
extent possible, at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the CEP or NV 
sales, as appropriate.
    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-Constructed Value (``CV'') 
Comparison'' sections of this notice.

Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

YUSCO and Tung Mung
    Because the Department determined that YUSCO and Tung Mung made 
sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
subject merchandise in the investigation and therefore excluded such 
sales from normal value, the Department determined that there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that YUSCO and Tung Mung made 
sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise in this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As 
a result, the Department initiated a cost of production inquiry to 
determine whether YUSCO and Tung Mung made home market sales during the 
POR at prices below their respective COP within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of YUSCO's and Tung Mung's cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market 
selling, general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), including 
interest expenses, and packing costs. We used home market sales and COP 
information provided by YUSCO and Tung Mung in its questionnaire 
responses.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP from June 8, 1999 through June 
30, 2000 (``cost reporting period'') for YUSCO and Tung Mung, adjusted 
where appropriate, to their home market sales of the foreign like 
product as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In determining 
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the 
COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended period of time, such 
sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made 
at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product within an extended 
period of time are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales are not 
made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the extended period are at 
prices less than the COP, we determine such sales to have been made in 
``substantial quantities.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. The 
extended period of time for this analysis is the POR. See section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because each individual price was compared 
against the weighted average COP for the cost reporting period, any 
sales that were below cost were also at prices which did not permit 
cost recovery within a reasonable period of time. See section 
773(b)(2)(D). We compared the COP for subject merchandise to the 
reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges. Based 
on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales from our analysis for 
YUSCO and Tung Mung. Where all sales of a specific product were at 
prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.
D. Calculation of CV
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated 
YUSCO's and Tung Mung's constructed value (``CV'') based on the sum of 
their cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, including interest 
expenses, and profit. We calculated the COPs included in the 
calculation of CV as noted above in the ``Calculation of COP'' section 
of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by YUSCO and 
Tung Mung in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the 
foreign country.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

YUSCO
    We based normal value (``NV'') on the home market prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers and those affiliated customer sales which 
passed the arm's length test. We made adjustments, where appropriate, 
for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    We calculated NV based on the home market prices to unaffiliated 
home market customers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for 
rebates and for movement expenses (i.e., inland freight from plant to 
customer) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for warranty expense, where 
appropriate. At verification, the Department noted inaccuracies in 
YUSCO's reported date of shipment, and consequently the value of its 
reported imputed credit expenses. Specifically, YUSCO reported the 
scheduled date, rather than the actual date of shipment, taken from the 
company's delivery notice. YUSCO reported that the scheduled date of 
shipment preceded the actual date of shipment by an average of six 
days.

[[Page 41516]]

YUSCO acknowledged its error at verification and formally withdrew its 
claim for imputed credit expenses in a letter dated June 29, 2001. (See 
Letter from YUSCO to the Department, dated June 29, 2001.) Therefore, 
to correct this error, the Department disallowed imputed credit for all 
sales with reported positive credit expenses. For sales with reported 
negative credit expense, the Department added six days to the reported 
shipment date (i.e., scheduled shipment date), and recalculated credit 
accordingly. See YUSCO: Analysis Memo. In accordance with section 
773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs.
Tung Mung
    We based home market prices on the packed, delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Such 
adjustments included adjustments for packing expenses. Where 
applicable, we made adjustments for movement expenses. To adjust for 
differences in circumstances of sale between the home market and the 
United States, we reduced home market prices by the amounts for direct 
selling expenses (i.e., credit and warranty expenses) and added U.S. 
credit expenses.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

YUSCO and Tung Mung
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV 
if we are unable to find suitable home market sales of the foreign like 
product. We did not use CV for YUSCO or Tung Mung for these preliminary 
results of review.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP transaction. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV 
is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses 
and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price 
sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, 
we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along 
the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based 
and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61746 
(November 19, 1997).
YUSCO
    In the present review, YUSCO did not request a LOT adjustment. To 
determine whether an adjustment was necessary, in accordance with the 
principles discussed above, we examined information regarding the 
distribution systems in both the United States and Taiwan markets, 
including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling 
expenses.
    For the home market (``HM''), YUSCO reported one level of trade. 
See October 30, 2001 Questionnaire Response from YUSCO, at B-32. YUSCO 
sold through one channel of distribution in the HM: Directly from its 
plant to local distributors. For these HM customers, YUSCO provided 
inland freight and warranty services where appropriate. Because there 
is only one sales channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one 
LOT in the home market.
    For the U.S. market, YUSCO reported one level of trade. See October 
30, 2001 Questionnaire Response from YUSCO, at C-26. YUSCO sold through 
one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: To an unaffiliated 
local distributor. For U.S. sales, YUSCO provided inland freight from 
the plant to the port of export. YUSCO also provided for container, 
certification and document handling fees at the port of export along 
with marine transportation and insurance. YUSCO did not incur any 
expenses in the United States for its U.S. sales. Because there is only 
one sales channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in 
the home market.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales 
in the HM and U.S. market, we preliminarily determine that, despite the 
existence of certain minor additional selling expenses (i.e., 
container, certification and document handling fees at the port of 
export) incurred by YUSCO for its U.S. sales, there is not a 
significant difference in the selling functions performed in the HM and 
U.S. market and that these sales are made at the same LOT. Therefore, a 
LOT adjustment is not appropriate.
Tung Mung
    In the present review, Tung Mung stated that a LOT adjustment was 
not applicable. To determine whether an adjustment is necessary, in 
accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information 
regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and home 
markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and 
selling expenses.
    In the home market (``HM''), Tung Mung reported two levels of 
trade. See November 6, 2000 Questionnaire Response from Tung Mung, at 
B-26. In the HM, Tung Mung stated that it sold through two channels of 
distribution: Made to order sales; and, supplied from inventory sales. 
However, Tung Mung was unable to differentiate sales based on channel 
of distribution and reported all sales, therefore, as ``both made to 
order and supplied from inventory.'' Because Tung Mung claimed that it 
could not distinguish its level of trade based on channels of 
distribution, it reported home market level of trade based on its two 
customer types: Distributors and end-users.
    For sales in the HM, Tung Mung performed sales-related activities, 
including arranging for freight and delivery and warranty for both 
distributors and end-users. Therefore, based on Tung Mung's selling 
functions performed for each type of customer, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    In the U.S. market Tung Mung reported two levels of trade. See 
November 6, 2000 Questionnaire Response from Tung Mung, at C-23. In the 
U.S. market, Tung Mung stated that it sold through one channel of 
distribution: Made to order sales. However, Tung Mung sold merchandise 
to two types of customers, distributors and trading companies, and 
reported its U.S. level of trade based on customer type.
    For U.S. sales to both distributors and trading companies, Tung 
Mung performed many of the same major selling functions, including 
freight and delivery and warranty services. Therefore, based on Tung 
Mung's selling functions performed for each type of customer, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    Finally, because the selling functions performed for both HM and EP 
sales are identical, we preliminarily determine that there is not a 
significant difference in the selling functions performed in the home 
market and U.S. market and that these sales are made at the same LOT.

[[Page 41517]]

Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not appropriate.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on the 
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) of 
the Act directs the Department to use the daily exchange rate in effect 
on the date of sale in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. 
dollars, unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In 
accordance with the Department's practice, we have determined as a 
general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate 
differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain Stainless 
Steel Wire Rods from France; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915, 8918 (March 6, 1998), and Policy 
Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996). The 
benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 
business days. When we determine a fluctuation exists, we substitute 
the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 8, 
1999 through June 30, 2000:

          Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/exporter/reseller                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YUSCO......................................................         0.00
Chia Far...................................................        34.95
Tung Mung..................................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals 
to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or 
comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting 
written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of 
those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 
Department calculated an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We 
calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value, or entered quantity, as 
appropriate, of the examined sales for that importer. Upon completion 
of this review, where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess duties on all entries of 
subject merchandise by that importer.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results of administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed 
in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a 
particular product is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash 
deposit rate of zero will be required for that company); (2) for 
previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (``LTFV'') 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate 
of 12.61 percent, which is the all others rate established in the LTFV 
investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, that continues to govern 
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 
Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-19780 Filed 8-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P