[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41530-41538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19783]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-834]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of 
Korea: Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial recission of 
antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel sheet and 
strip in coils from the Republic of Korea.

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

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 from the Republic of Korea in response 
to a request from respondents Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 
(``POSCO''), Samwon Precision Metals Co., Ltd. (``Samwon''), Daiyang 
Metal Co., Ltd. (``DMC''), and petitioners,\1\ who requested a review 
of Sammi Steel Co. (``Sammi'') and any of its affiliates within the 
meaning of section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), including any successor or surviving company to Sammi. This 
review covers imports of subject merchandise from POSCO, Samwon, DMC 
and Sammi. The period of review (``POR'') is January 4, 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 Samwon and DMC have 
sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during the 
POR and that POSCO did not make any sales below normal value during the 
POR. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the 
review with respect to Sammi 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 review, we will 
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on 
suspended entries for Samwon and DMC.
    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: Laurel LaCivita (POSCO); Stephen Shin 
(Samwon); Amy Ryan (DMC), Brandon Farlander (Sammi); or Rick Johnson, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243, (202) 482-0413, (202) 482-0961, 
(202) 482-0182 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, 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 (2001).

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 
the Republic of Korea (65 FR 45035). On July 27, 2000, petitioners 
requested a review of Sammi and its affiliates within the meaning of 
section 771(33) of the Act. On July 31, 2000, POSCO, Samwon, and DMC, 
producers and exporters of subject merchandise during the POR, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), requested administrative reviews 
of the antidumping order covering the period January 4, 1999, through 
June 30, 2000. On September 6, 2000, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of 
this order (65 FR 53980).
    On September 20, 2000, and in subsequent submissions on September 
28, 2000, October 13, 2000, and November 3, 2000, Sammi informed the 
Department that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with the Customs 
Service. See the Memorandum from Brandon Farlander 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 
the Republic of Korea,'' dated July 31, 2001. Consequently, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, 
we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Sammi. For 
further discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of 
this notice, below.
    On November 27, 2000, and December 4, 2000, petitioners requested 
the Department to initiate a sales below cost investigation on Samwon 
and DMC, respectively. On February 2, 2001 and March 7, 2001, the 
Department initiated the sales below cost investigation on Samwon and 
DMC, respectively.
    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 5, 2001, the Department extended the 
time limit for the preliminary results in this review to July 2, 2001. 
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of 
Korea: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 1085 (January 5, 2001). 
On March 14, 2001, the Department extended the time limit for the 
preliminary results in this review for an additional 30 days. The 
preliminary results are now due on July 31, 2001. See Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time 
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 14891 (March 14, 2001).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this administrative 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

[[Page 41531]]

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 review is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 \2\, 
7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 
7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 
7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 
7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 
7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 
7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 
7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 
7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 
7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 
7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 
7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, 
and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 
7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 
7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from the scope of this review 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 has 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also 
excluded from the scope of this review. 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 this review. 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 review. 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.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this review. 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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this review. 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

[[Page 41532]]

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.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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 this review. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\6\ 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 processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6''.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \7\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    Sammi reported, and the Department confirmed through independent 
U.S. Customs Service data, that it had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. 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 Sammi. (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).)
    Since Sammi did not report any shipments during the POR, we have no 
basis for determining a margin. Therefore, since Sammi did not 
participate in the original investigation, its cash deposit rate will 
remain at 12.12 percent, which is the all others rate established in 
the less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and 
cost information, provided by POSCO, from February 2, 2001, to February 
14, 2001, and February 19, 2001, to February 23, 2001, respectively, 
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 
conducted a cost verification of Samwon from June 11, 2001, to June 15, 
2001. Our verification results are outlined in the public version of 
the verification report 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, NW., Washington, DC.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether POSCO's sales of subject merchandise from 
Korea to the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared the constructed export price (``CEP'') 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 CEP transactions. We made corrections to reported U.S. 
and home market sales data based on the Department's findings at 
verification, as appropriate.

Transactions Reviewed

    For POSCO, Samwon and DMC, 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 Korea 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 based NV on the prices at which the foreign like 
product was first sold for consumption in Korea, 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.

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 POSCO, Samwon and DMC 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.

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.
    On November 27, 2000, petitioners submitted an allegation of sales 
below cost by Samwon. On January 4, 2001, the Department found 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Samwon made home market 
sales at prices below COP, as set forth in 773(b) of the Act and 
initiated a cost-of-production investigation. Samwon's reported COP is 
based in part on an allocation methodology which does not reconcile to 
the company's own production records. Samwon has stated in its 
responses that the company's allocation methodology is based on the 
professional judgement of company engineers. At verification, the 
Department discovered that the allocation methodology does not reflect 
the company's own production

[[Page 41533]]

experience in a manner that can be verified due to Samwon's record-
keeping ability. See Antidumping Duty Review on Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils from Korea: Cost Verification Report of Samwon 
Precision Metals, dated July 24, 2001, at 11-14. Therefore, Samwon's 
methodology possesses serious flaws which render ineffective the 
Department's ability to accurately conclude whether HM sales have been 
made below the cost of production based on the company's reporting of 
model-specific costs. The Department notes that, although the overall 
cost pool captures all costs related to production of subject 
merchandise, we were unable to adjust the reported CONNUM-specific 
costs due to the broad nature of the company's allocation methodology 
and the inaccuracies contained within the company's own production 
records. As a result, the CONNUM-specific costs of production reported 
in Samwon's response cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a 
preliminary results of review. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a) of 
the Act, we have instead relied on partial facts available for Samwon 
for this preliminary results of review.
    Although the reported CONNUM-specific costs are unusable, we found 
that the overall costs reported by Samwon were consistent with the data 
kept by the company in the normal course of business. Also, in the 
aggregate, we did not find any reason to suggest that the total 
reported costs did not accurately reflect the costs associated with all 
subject merchandise in its entirety. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 782(e)(3) of the Act, we have not ``declined to use information 
submitted on the record by an interested party and is necessary to the 
determination but does not meet all of the applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority.'' Consequently, as partial 
facts available, we have calculated one weighted-average COP and 
compared all home-market prices to the single COP for the purposes of 
determining sales below cost. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 
from the Russian Federation, 64 FR 38626 (July 19, 1999). Additionally, 
for comparisons of EP to CV, the Department is likewise using a single 
CV. For further details, see the memorandum from Stephen Shin through 
Rick Johnson to the File, Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Korea--Samwon Precision 
Metals Co., Ltd. (``Samwon'') (``Analysis Memo: Samwon''), July 31, 
2001. Given the considerable variation between models of a given 
product, the Department notes that the use of a single weighted-average 
COP most often leads to results which do not accurately reflect the 
costs incurred in a company's own production process for a particular 
model. However, in the case at hand, the Department notes that a 
preponderance of Samwon's production and HM sales quantity centers 
around a small number of models that do not differ significantly in 
terms of the physical characteristics which the Department considers as 
having the greatest impact on the overall costs of production of the 
merchandise. As these models constitute the preponderance of Samwon's 
overall production quantity, these models also constitute the 
preponderance of Samwon's overall cost pool. Since the Department 
weighted the average COP calculated in this review by production 
quantity, this single weighted-average COP in fact approximates the 
production costs for the models of stainless steel sheet and strip 
which Samwon primarily produces. Thus, the Department finds that using 
one weighted-average COP in this instance does not lead to a 
significantly distortive COP given the fact that a preponderance of 
Samwon's costs are incurred in the production of a small number of 
models. See Analysis Memo: Samwon at 4-6.
    Notwithstanding the Department's decision to use Samwon's reported 
COP in this manner, this decision does not represent an endorsement by 
the Department of Samwon's methodology for reporting COP. As noted in 
the verification report and the explanation above, there are flaws in 
Samwon's methodology which render ineffective the Department's 
established methodology of calculating dumping margins. In particular, 
the Department is advising Samwon that the reporting methodology used 
in this review will be unacceptable for future segments of this 
proceeding. In future segments, Samwon risks the application of adverse 
facts available in the event that it fails to report COP data that is 
allocated sufficiently to unique CONNUMs in a manner that is 
verifiable.
    Because the data used by the Department as the basis of facts 
available is the respondent's own data, it is not secondary information 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Consequently, the 
statute does not require the Department to corroborate this 
information.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price 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, as adjusted under subsection (c). In 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price 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, as adjusted under 
subsections (c) and (d).

POSCO

    For purposes of this review, POSCO has classified its sales as 
export price (``EP'') sales. However, after an analysis of POSCO's 
information on the record, we preliminarily determine that all of 
POSCO's sales to the United States should be classified as constructed 
export price sales.
    POSCO identified the following two channels of distribution for 
U.S. sales: (1) POSCO sales through Pohang Steel America Corp. 
(``POSAM''), POSCO's wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, to an unaffiliated 
customer in the United States, and (2) POSCO sales through POSCO Steel 
Sales & Services Co., Ltd. (``POSTEEL''), POSCO's affiliated trading 
company in Korea, to POSAM, and finally, to an unaffiliated customer in 
the United States. We based our calculation on CEP, in accordance with 
subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act, for those sales to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser that took place prior to importation into 
the United States.
    As noted above, POSCO has indicated that all of its U.S. sales made 
through POSAM should be treated as EP sales. POSAM takes title to the 
subject merchandise and, when it sold the subject merchandise to the 
unaffiliated U.S. customer, POSAM issued an invoice to the U.S. 
customer. See POSCO's October 3, 2000 Section A response, at A-10 and 
Appendix A-6 and A-10. Based on this information on the record, and, in 
light of AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 
September 12, 2000), we preliminarily determine that all of

[[Page 41534]]

POSCO's sales have taken place in the United States. Therefore, we 
determine that all of POSCO's sales are appropriately classified as CEP 
sales.
    We calculated CEP based on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
export, foreign brokerage and Korean customs clearance fees, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, and U.S. 
brokerage and wharfage expenses (classified as other U.S. 
transportation expenses). Also, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we deducted packing expenses because packing expenses are 
included in the constructed export price. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States, including 
direct selling expenses (imputed credit expenses, postage and term 
credit expenses, and letter of credit and remittance expenses) and 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, For 
POSAM's indirect selling expenses, we adjusted POSCO's claimed imputed 
credit offset to include only the sum of imputed credit expenses 
reported for U.S. sales of subject merchandise. For CEP sales, we also 
made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty 
drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

DMC

    DMC reported that it made all sales to the United States through 
its wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States, Ocean Metal 
Corporation (``OMC''). Consequently, it classified all of its U.S. 
sales as CEP sales. We calculated CEP based on packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 
these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the 
plant to the port of export, foreign inland freight from the plant to 
the unaffiliated customer, foreign brokerage and Korean customs 
clearance fees, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs 
duty, and U.S. brokerage and wharfage expenses. Also, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we deducted packing expenses 
because packing expenses are included in the constructed export price. 
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States, including direct selling expenses and indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs. For CEP sales, we also 
made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty 
drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Samwon

    For purposes of this review, Samwon has classified its sales as 
export price (``EP'') sales. 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 Samwon 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. Samwon identified two channels of 
distribution for U.S. sales (sales to the U.S. through unaffiliated 
resellers and sales directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers) for its 
U.S. sales during the POR. We based EP on packed prices for export to 
the United States. We made deductions for inland freight (from Samwon's 
plant to the port of export), international freight, marine insurance, 
container handling fees, certification handling fees, and foreign 
brokerage and handling in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. 
Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty drawback 
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Normal Value

    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

POSCO

    Because the Department determined that POSCO 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 
(see, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of 
Korea, 64 FR 30664, 30670 (June 8, 1999)), the Department determined 
that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that POSCO 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 POSCO made home market sales during the POR at prices 
below their respective COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act.

Samwon and DMC

    Based on our examination of petitioners' allegation of sales below 
cost and our subsequent initiation of a sales below cost investigation, 
the Department required Samwon and DMC to submit Section D cost data to 
determine whether they made home market sales during the POR at prices 
below their respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act. See the Department's questionnaire to Samwon and DMC dated January 
4, 2001 and March 2, 2001, respectively.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

POSCO
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
for POSCO, Samwon and DMC, based on the sum of the cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home 
market selling, general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), 
interest expenses, and packing costs. We used home market sales and COP 
information provided by each company in its questionnaire responses, 
with the following exceptions, detailed in the proprietary version of 
the July 31, 2001 memorandum to Neal Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, Cost of Production (``COP'') and Constructed Value (``CV'') 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results of Pohang Iron & 
Steel Co., Ltd. (``POSCO''):
    1. POSCO purchased a major input from an affiliate and used the 
input's transfer prices in its calculation of COP and CV. For the 
preliminary results, we have increased the transfer price of these 
purchases to a market price in accordance with section 773(f)(2) and 
(3) of the Act.
    2. In 1999, POSCO wrote off all of its deferred foreign exchange 
losses through retained earnings. POSCO originally capitalized these 
losses with the intention of recognizing the loss over time on its 
income statement. Subsequently, POSCO expensed these deferred losses 
directly to equity in 1999. Therefore, we adjusted POSCO's reported COP 
to include the entire

[[Page 41535]]

amount of the remaining deferred foreign exchange losses.
    3. We adjusted POSCO's reported foreign exchange ratio to include 
gains and losses associated with cash and ``other'' accounts in the 
numerator.
Samwon
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, as facts 
available, we calculated COP on a factory-wide basis on the sum of 
Samwon's cost of material 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 Samwon in its 
questionnaire responses, with the following exceptions, detailed in the 
proprietary version of the memorandum from Stephen Shin to the file, 
Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 
in Coils from Korea--Samwon Precision Metals Co., Ltd. (``Samwon''), 
July 31, 2001:
    1. Samwon misclassified foreign exchange gain/loss, donation, 
foreign exchange valuation gain/loss, miscellaneous loss, service 
income, and gain on disposal of fixed assets as interest expenses which 
the Department normally considers G&A expenses. For the preliminary 
results, we have reclassified these expenses and recalculated Samwon's 
G&A and interest expense ratios.
    2. We adjusted Samwon's reported G&A expense to include only 
foreign exchange gain/loss associated with the cost of materials used 
in the production of subject merchandise and to exclude all other types 
of foreign exchange gain/loss.
    3. Since Samwon was unable to provide support for its claim of 
short-term interest income, we have adjusted Samwon's interest expense 
ratio to exclude interest income.
DMC
    We made no changes to the submitted data for this administrative 
review.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP from January 4, 1999, through 
June 30, 2000 (``cost reporting period'') for POSCO, Samwon and DMC, 
adjusted where appropriate (see above), to its 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 
POSCO, Samwon and DMC. 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 CV 
for POSCO, Samwon and DMC based on the sum of each company's 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 each company 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

POSCO

    We based 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 applicable, for movement expenses (i.e., 
inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse, warehousing 
expense, and inland freight from either plant/distribution warehouse to 
customer) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit, warranty expense and 
interest revenue, where appropriate. In accordance with section 
773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs. Also, on certain sales, we added to NV an amount for duty 
drawback. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Samwon

    We based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
and those affiliated customers 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 
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments or deductions for credit, 
warranty expense, and interest revenue, where appropriate. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs.

DMC

    We based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
and those affiliated customer sales which passed the arm's-length test. 
DMC reported that it incurred no freight expenses in the home market. 
Therefore, we made no adjustment for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made a circumstance-of-sale 
adjustment for credit. In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Also, 
on certain sales, we added to NV an amount for duty drawback. We made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV 
if we are unable to find contemporaneous home market sales of the 
foreign like product. Where applicable, we make adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We did not base NV upon 
CV for POSCO or Samwon for these preliminary results of review. 
However, for DMC, we based NV on CV when we were unable to find 
contemporaneous home market sales of the foreign like product.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

[[Page 41536]]

practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP 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. For 
CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the 
affiliated importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
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. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and 
CEP sales affect price comparability, we adjust NV under section 
773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

POSCO

    In the present review, POSCO requested a LOT adjustment or a CEP 
offset if the Department determines that POSCO's sales through POSAM 
are CEP sales. (As noted above, we have preliminarily determined that 
all of POSCO's U.S. sales through POSAM are CEP sales.) 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 Korean markets, including the 
selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.
    In both the U.S and home markets, POSCO reported one level of 
trade. See POSCO's August 14, 2000, Section A response, at A-11-12. 
POSCO sold through two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) 
Directly from its mill to unaffiliated end-users/OEM's and affiliated 
and unaffiliated service centers; and (2) through POSTEEL to 
unaffiliated end-users/OEM's and unaffiliated service centers. POSCO 
sold through two channels of distribution in the U.S. market: (1) 
Through POSAM to unaffiliated trading companies; and (2) through 
POSTEEL to POSAM, and then to unaffiliated trading companies.
    For sales in home market channel one, POSCO performed all sales-
related activities, including arranging for freight and delivery; 
providing computerized accounting and sales systems; market research; 
warranty; sales negotiation; after-sales service; quality control; and 
extending credit. The same selling functions were performed in home 
market channel two; however, it was POSTEEL, not POSCO, which performed 
all the major selling functions. Because these selling functions are 
similar for both sales channels, we preliminarily determine that there 
is one LOT in the home market.
    For U.S. sales through either channel one or two, POSCO or POSTEEL 
performed many of the same major selling functions, such as freight and 
delivery; market research; warranty; sales negotiation; after-sales 
service; and quality control. Because these selling functions are 
similar for both sales channels, we preliminarily determine that there 
is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales 
in the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. market, 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. Therefore, we preliminarily determine 
that a LOT adjustment or CEP offset is not warranted in this case.

Samwon

    In the present review, Samwon stated that a LOT adjustment was not 
applicable. (As noted above, we have preliminarily determined that all 
of Samwon's U.S. sales are EP sales.) 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 United States markets, including the selling 
functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.
    In both the home and U.S. market, Samwon reported two levels of 
trade. See Samwon's October 12, 2000 Section A response at A-9 and 
November 6, 2000 Section B&C response, at B-12. Samwon sold through two 
channels of distribution in each market: (1) Made-to-order sales 
directly to end-users and (2) made-to-order sales to resellers/traders.
    For sales in the home market to either end-users or resellers/
traders, Samwon arranged inland freight. Samwon reported that the 
company provided technical support through on-site visitation upon 
customer request regardless of channel of distribution. Samwon reported 
no other sales or warranty services. Because these selling functions 
are similar for both sales channels, we preliminarily determine that 
there is one LOT in the home market.
    For U.S. sales, Samwon arranged inland freight, ocean freight, and 
insurance upon customer request. Samwon reported no other sales 
services or a warranty service. Because the selling functions are 
similar for both sales channels, we preliminarily determine that there 
is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales 
in the home market and EP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily 
determine that, despite the additional selling function (i.e., 
technical visits) offered to home market customers, there is no 
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. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that a LOT adjustment or CEP 
offset is not warranted in this case.

DMC

    In the present review, DMC made no claims that a LOT adjustment was 
appropriate. (As noted above, we have preliminarily determined that all 
of DMC's U.S. sales CEP are sales.) 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.
    For sales in the home market to either end-users or distributors, 
DMC's selling activities in the home market consisted of receiving and 
processing customers' orders, arranging freight and delivery for small 
customers, delivery services for customers purchasing large quantities, 
inventory maintenance for small distributors, and warranty services. 
Because DMC's selling activities did not vary by channels of 
distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the 
home market.
    In the U.S. market, DMC sold all of its merchandise through its's 
U.S. subsidiary, OMC. Consequently, DMC claimed that OMC performed the 
requisite selling activities and that it did

[[Page 41537]]

not perform any selling activities such as the negotiation of sales 
terms, maintenance and collection of accounts receivable, and 
evaluation of customer credit, importation of subject merchandise and 
delivery of the merchandise to the unaffiliated customer. For the U.S. 
market, DMC's selling functions are limited to freight and delivery 
arrangements, which do not vary by customer type. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market and 
that it is at a different level of trade than the comparison market.
    We attempted to examine whether the difference in LOTs affects 
price comparability. However, we were unable to quantify the LOT 
adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, as we 
found that there is only one LOT in the home market. Because of this, 
we were unable to calculate a LOT adjustment. Therefore, because the NV 
is established at a more advanced level of trade than the LOT of the 
CEP transactions, we adjusted NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 
(the CEP offset provision).

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 January 
4, 1999 through June 30, 2000:

           Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Korea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/exporter/reseller                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSCO......................................................         0.00
Samwon.....................................................         7.88
DMC........................................................         2.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Furthermore, 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. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment 
rates. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by 
the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We 
will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the resulting percentage 
margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise 
on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the 
review period. Upon completion of this review, the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

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 the reviewed company will be the rate listed above 
(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 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 12.12 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 (``APO'') 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.


[[Page 41538]]


    Dated: July 31, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-19783 Filed 8-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P