[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41500-41508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19911]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-828]


Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From 
Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of the Suspension Agreement

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of the suspension agreement.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from petitioners, Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, Ispat Inland, Inc., LTV Steel Company Inc., National Steel 
Corporation, and U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation 
(collectively domestic producers), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the Suspension 
Agreement on hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel (hot-rolled 
steel) from Brazil. This review covers three manufacturers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise, Companhia Siderurgica Nacional 
(CSN), Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (USIMINAS), and Companhia 
Siderurgica Paulista (COSIPA) during the period of review (POR) from 
July 19, 1999 through June 30, 2000. We preliminarily determine that 
CSN and USIMINAS have made sales below the reference price established 
by the Suspension Agreement. We also preliminarily determine that the 
amount by which the estimated normal value exceeds the export price for 
each entry by CSN and USIMINAS/COSIPA indicates that the dumping margin 
on certain entries exceeds 15 percent of the weighted average margin 
for CSN and USIMINAS/COSIPA in the LTV investigation. For reasons 
stated in this notice, the Department preliminarily determines that CSN 
and USIMINAS/COSIPA have violated the Agreement. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit 
comments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of 
the issues and (2) a brief summary of the arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phyllis Hall (CSN), Michael Ferrier or 
Dena Aliadinov (USIMINAS/COSIPA), or Nancy Decker, Enforcement Group 
III, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-1398, (202) 482-1394, (202) 482-3362, and (202) 482-0196, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute

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

Background

    On July 6, 1999, the Department entered into the Agreement 
Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon-Quality Steel from Brazil produced by CSN, USIMINAS, and COSIPA. 
See Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Hot-Rolled Flat-
Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 64 FR 38792, (July 
19, 1999) (Suspension Agreement). This agreement was entered into under 
section 734(c) of the Act and section 351.208 of the Department's 
regulations. Section 734(c)(1) of the Act requires: (1) that the 
agreement eliminate completely the injurious effect of exports to the 
United States of the subject merchandise and (2) that the suppression 
or undercutting of price levels of domestic products by imports of the 
merchandise will be prevented; and (2) that for each entry of each 
exporter, the amount by which the estimated normal value exceeds the 
export price (or constructed export price) will not exceed 15 percent 
of the weighted average amount by which the estimated normal value 
exceeded the export price (or constructed export price) for all less-
than-fair-value entries of the producer/exporter examined during the 
course of the investigation. To satisfy the statutory criteria, the 
Suspension Agreement requires all signatories (CSN, USIMINAS, and 
COSIPA) to sell covered products in the United States at or above 
established reference prices and to satisfy the requirements of section 
734(c)(1)(B) of the Act. The reference prices are set on a quarterly 
basis and include all transportation charges to the U.S. port of entry, 
together with port fees, duties, offloading, wharfage, and other 
charges incurred in bringing the steel to the first customs port of 
discharge in the U.S. market. See the Suspension Agreement, 64 FR 
38793.

[[Page 41501]]

    On July 28, 2000, petitioners requested the Department to conduct 
an administrative review of the sales and cost of USIMINAS, COSIPA, and 
CSN to ensure that the parties are in compliance with the terms of the 
Suspension Agreement. The Suspension Agreement stipulates that the 
Department may conduct administrative reviews under section 751 of the 
Act, upon request or upon its own initiative, to ensure that exports of 
hot-rolled steel from Brazil are at prices consistent with the terms of 
the agreement. Pursuant to petitioners' request, the Department 
initiated this administrative review on August 25, 2000 (See Initiation 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Requests for Revocation in Part, 65 FR 53980 (September 6, 2000)).
    On October 24, 2000, the Department issued the antidumping 
questionnaire. On November 28, 2000, the respondents submitted section 
A of the questionnaire. On December 22, 2000, the respondents submitted 
sections B-D of the questionnaire. On January 25, 2001, the Department 
issued the first supplemental questionnaire. On February 7, 2001, the 
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire. On February 12, 
2001, the respondents submitted their responses to the first 
supplemental questionnaire. On February 16, 2001, the Department issued 
the third supplemental questionnaire, and on March 2, 2001 the 
respondents submitted their responses to the second and third 
supplemental questionnaires. On May 11, 2001 and May 18, 2001, the 
Department issued the fourth and fifth supplemental questionnaires. On 
June 6, 2001, the respondents submitted their responses to the fourth 
and fifth supplemental questionnaires.
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for issuing the preliminary results in an administrative 
review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the 
preliminary results within the statutory time limit of 245 days. On 
March 8, 2001, the Department published a notice of extension of the 
time limit for the completion of the preliminary results by 120 days, 
until July 31, 2001. See Administrative Review of the Suspension 
Agreement on Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Brazil: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 13891 (March 8, 2001).

Period of Review

    The review covers the period July 19, 1999 through June 30, 2000. 
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 
of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered are certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-
quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch 
or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or 
not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic 
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed 
layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a 
thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times 
the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled 
on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but 
not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in 
coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 
mm is not included within the scope of this agreement.
    Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully 
stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, 
high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor 
lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with 
micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added 
to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized 
as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, 
copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for 
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such 
as silicon and aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this agreement, 
regardless of HTSUS definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) 
the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the 
elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively 
indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this agreement unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this agreement:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including e.g., ASTM 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506).
     SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      C              Mn             P             S            Si            Cr            Cu            Ni
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  0.10-0.14%      0.90% Max    0.025% Max    0.005% Max    0.30-0.50%    0.30-0.50%    0.20-0.40%     0.20% Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches;
Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000-88,000 
psi.

     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        C                Mn               P                S                Si               Cr               Cu               Ni               Mo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   0.10-0.16%        070-0.90%       0.025% Max       0.006% Max       0.30-0.50%       0.30-0.50%        0.25% Max        0.20% Max        0.21% Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 41502]]

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum;
Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 150,000 psi 
Aim.
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       C              Mn               P               S              Si             Cr             Cu             Ni          V (wt.)           Cb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  0.10-0.14%      1.30-1.80%      0.025% Max      0.005% Max     0.30-0.50%     0.50-0.70%     0.20-0.40%      0.20% Max      0.10% Max      0.08% Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum;
Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi 
Aim.
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      C            Mn             P             S            Si            Cr            Cu            Ni            Nb            Ca            A1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 0.15% Max     1.40% Max    0.025% Max    0.010% Max     0.50% Max     1.00% Max     0.50% Max     0.20% Max    0,005% Min       Treated    0.01-0.07%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum;
Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses 0.148 
inches and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile 
Strength = 80,000 psi minimum.
     Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily 
with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to 
and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by 
either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/
mm2 and an elongation percentage  26 percent for 
thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii) a tensile strength between 590 
N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 
 25 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above.
     Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in 
coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, 
with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 
0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 
0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium.
     Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut 
lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), 
thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed, 
with a minimum copper content of 0.20%.
    The merchandise subject to this agreement is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 
7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 
7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 
7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 
7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 
7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 
7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 
7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 
7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 
7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-
rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this investigation, including: 
vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the 
substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following 
tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 
7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 
7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 
7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise under this 
agreement is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
using standard verification procedures, including the examination of 
the relevant sales and financial records.
    Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports. See COSIPA Sales Verification Report dated May 9, 
2001 and July 31, 2001, USIMINAS Sales Verification Report dated May 9, 
2001 and July 31, 2001, CSN Sales Verification Report dated May 9, 2001 
and July 31, 2001 and other U.S. sales verification reports dated May 
9, 2001 and May 11, 2001.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party 
or any other person--(A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject 
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.
    The statute requires that certain conditions be met before the 
Department may resort to the facts available. Where the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the 
Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, 
to the extent

[[Page 41503]]

practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the 
applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), 
disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as 
appropriate. Briefly, section 782(e) provides that the Department 
``shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an 
interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not 
meet all the applicable requirements established by (the Department)'' 
if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete 
that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best 
of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these 
conditions are met, and the Department can use the information without 
undue difficulties, the statute requires it to do so.
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department 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,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of the party as the facts otherwise available. Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong. 2nd Sess. (1994), at 870. 
Furthermore, ``an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties Final Rule, 
62 FR 27340. The statute notes, in addition, that in selecting from 
among the facts available the Department may, subject to the 
corroboration requirements of section 776(c), rely upon information 
drawn from the petition, a final determination in the investigation, 
any previous administrative review conducted under section 751 (or 
section 753 for countervailing duty cases), or any other information on 
the record.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    The Department's questionnaire of October 24, 2000 instructed the 
respondents to report all home market sales of the merchandise under 
review. In a letter dated November 1, 2000, from USIMINAS/COSIPA and 
CSN commenting on the Department's October 24, 2000 questionnaire, 
respondents requested not to report cut-to-length hot-rolled 
merchandise in the home market. In the letter, respondents asserted 
that given the restrictions in the Suspension Agreement for what 
respondents can export to the United States, home market sales of cut-
to-length sheet are an example of a hot-rolled product that ``cannot be 
deemed identical and would unlikely ever be deemed most similar to the 
products exported to the United States.'' The respondents had argued 
that the Suspension Agreement stipulates that the respondents can only 
sell coil products in the U.S. market. CSN and COSIPA reported sales of 
cut-to-length hot-rolled merchandise in the home market; however, in 
USIMINAS' December 22, 2000 Section B submission, USIMINAS only 
reported home market sales of coil. In supplemental questionnaires 
dated February 7, 2001 and May 11, 2001 the Department requested 
USIMINAS to report home market sales of cut-to-length hot-rolled 
merchandise and elaborated in the May 11, 2001 questionnaire that if 
this merchandise is not reported, ``the Department will apply adverse 
facts available to any non-identical matches that could have matches to 
cut-to-length products.'' In both instances, USIMINAS stated that it 
would not report cut-to-length merchandise in the home market. USIMINAS 
asserted that there is no possibility for the Department to compare a 
U.S. sale of USIMINAS coil to a home market sale of cut-to-length 
material, as it has sufficient sales of identical or similar hot-rolled 
coil in the home market for comparison to all U.S. sales.
    Within the model match hierarchy, all characteristics preceding the 
coil/cut-to-length characteristic are more defining. For instance, the 
characteristic immediately preceding the coil/cut-to-length 
characteristic is width. If the widths differ between a U.S. market 
coil sale and a home market coil sale, then a more suitable home market 
match for this U.S. observation would be a cut-to-length product with 
the same width (all other characteristics being equal), not a home 
market coil with a different width. In this instance, we have found 
certain U.S. sales that do not have an identical match at the width 
characteristic (but all other characteristics were equal). Therefore, a 
cut-to-length product of the same width (with all other characteristics 
being equal) as the U.S. sale would be a better match than the coil 
product with a different width. Since USIMINAS has not reported its 
home market cut-to-length sales, we have no way of determining if one 
of these sales would provide a better match.
    USIMINAS did not report cut-to-length sales, even though it had the 
ability to do so. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, 
since USIMINAS failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability in reporting cut-to-length sales, we are applying adverse facts 
available. We are assigning USIMINAS, as adverse facts available, the 
highest calculated margin for any USIMINAS/COSIPA U.S. sale 
observation, where a home market cut-to-length product is a potentially 
more suitable match than a home market coil product. See USIMINAS/
COSIPA Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, dated July 31, 2001.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents covered by the description in the ``Scope 
Review'' section above and sold in Brazil during the POR are considered 
to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, the 
Department compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the 
Department's October 24, 2000, antidumping questionnaire. If there were 
no home market foreign like products to compare to a U.S. sale, we used 
constructed value (CV).

Affiliated Respondents

    Under section 771(33)(E) of the Act, if one party owns, directly or 
indirectly, five percent or more of the other, such parties are 
considered to be affiliated for purposes of the antidumping law. 
Furthermore, it is the Department's practice to collapse affiliated 
producers for purposes of calculating a margin when they have 
production facilities for similar or identical products that would not 
require substantial retooling in order to restructure manufacturing 
priorities and the facts demonstrate that there is significant 
potential for manipulation of pricing or production. In the final 
determination of the investigation underlying this suspension 
agreement, we determined that USIMINAS and COSIPA were affiliated 
parties, and we collapsed these entities. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-
Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Brazil; 64 FR 38756, 38759) 
(Final Determination). In response to our questions concerning this 
issue, USIMINAS/COSIPA have indicated that there have been no major 
changes in the corporate structure and

[[Page 41504]]

affiliates. Moreover, USIMINAS/COSIPA has indicated that the Department 
should follow it's prior final determination on this issue. We 
preliminary determine that there are no facts on the record to indicate 
that the relationship between the parties has changed, nor that the 
Department's basis for collapsing these entities has changed in any 
way. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined to collapse these 
entities for purposes of this review.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, the Department determines Normal Value based on 
sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the 
export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting price of sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which the Department 
derives selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) 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 
LOT of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, the Department examines 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, the Department makes a LOT adjustment in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 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 affects price comparability, the Department 
adjusts NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset 
provision). See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South 
Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

CSN

    CSN claims to sell directly to trading companies, as well as to 
end-users and distributors through an agent (see further discussion of 
agency sales below) in the U.S. market. CSN also claims to sell to 
service center/distributors and end-users in the home market. CSN 
states that it provides warranties, technical assistance, returns, and 
freight arrangements equally to service centers/distributors and end-
users. Thus, the selling functions provided to different classes of 
home market customers do not vary significantly. CSN provides the same 
selling functions for U.S. sales except for technical assistance. 
Technical assistance is only provided with respect to home market 
sales. However, CSN notes that this assistance is mainly provided in 
connection with warranty claims which are available to all customers. 
We preliminarily find that the varying levels of technical assistance 
provided in this case do not establish a significant difference between 
the services provided to home market and U.S. customers. Consequently, 
the Department preliminarily determines that there is only one LOT in 
the home market and that it is at the same level as the single LOT in 
the U.S. market.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    In the home market, USIMINAS/COSIPA claims to make sales through 
two primary channels of distribution: (1) direct sales to distributors 
and end users and (2) sales through affiliated distributors.
    In determining whether separate levels of trade exist in the home 
market, the Department first examined available information on the 
record about the company's selling functions for each channel of 
distribution. USIMINAS/COSIPA claims that the selling functions 
performed by the affiliated distributors in the second channel of 
distribution (downstream sales) are much more significant than those 
performed by USIMINAS/COSIPA in their direct mill sales to end-users 
and unrelated distributors. To support its claim, the respondent 
provides the following examples of selling functions provided for 
downstream sales but not mill direct sales: inventory maintenance for 
customers, more flexible credit terms, special warehousing, technical 
services beyond those offered by the mills, special processing (on-site 
cutting and slitting activities), and more extensive delivery services. 
Of these selling functions, special processing does not appear to be a 
traditional selling function relevant to the Department's LOT analysis 
but, rather, is a production cost. For mill direct sales, USIMINAS/
COSIPA provides only limited after-sales services/warranties, freight 
and delivery arrangements, and technical advice.
    In addition, we have combined two selling functions, inventory 
maintenance and special warehousing (which, together, we refer to as 
``warehousing'') because we find that they were not sufficiently 
distinct to warrant being treated as unique selling functions.
    Based on these types of services performed by the affiliated 
distributors and the greater number of services provided by the 
affiliated distributors compared with the mills, we preliminary 
determine that the selling functions of the affiliates for downstream 
sales were significantly different than those for mill direct sales, 
and therefore, we have determined that downstream sales by affiliates 
were made at a different LOT than other HM sales. Thus, we 
preliminarily determine that downstream sales and mill direct sales 
represent two different home market LOTs.
    In the U.S. market, COSIPA sold directly to unaffiliated trading 
companies, while USIMINAS stated that it sold directly to U.S. 
customers (service centers and large-volume steel consumers) using 
unrelated trading companies as its agents. USIMINAS/COSIPA noted that 
although the channels of distribution used by each company are slightly 
different, there is no difference between the types of services offered 
to each group of customers. USIMINAS/COSIPA claim that all U.S. sales 
are made at the same level of trade as USIMINAS/COSIPA's direct home 
market sales to end users and distributors. Both USIMINAS and COSIPA 
provided very few services to its U.S. customers. The limited selling 
functions associated with U.S. sales include warranties only for 
merchandise that conforms to the specifications ordered and freight and 
delivery arrangements. As noted above, these services are also provided 
to home market mill direct customers. The only additional selling 
function offered for home market mill direct sales is a limited amount 
of technical advice. Both home market mill direct sales and U.S. sales 
involve sales to large customers, including service centers/
distributors that resell steel and end-users. The Department finds the 
limited type of selling functions for mill direct sales in the home 
market to be similar to U.S. sales. Therefore, based on our analysis of 
selling functions, the Department finds U.S. sales to be at the same 
LOT as home market mill direct sales.

Sales Involving Trading Companies

    USIMINAS indicated that all its sales to the United States were 
made through

[[Page 41505]]

trading companies acting as its agent; CSN makes the same claim for 
some of its sales to the United States. For these sales, USIMINAS and 
CSN invoice the trading companies, then the trading companies issue an 
invoice marked ``as agents on behalf of USIMINAS'or ``as agent on 
behalf of CSN'' to the end customers. (See Preliminary Analysis 
Memoranda, dated July 31, 2001, for a full description of the 
transaction flow). Both CSN and USIMINAS claim that the end customer is 
their customer and the trading companies are merely acting as an 
``agent.'' CSN and USIMINAS claim that since the trading companies are 
acting as ``agent,'' the title to the merchandise does not pass to the 
trading companies. Furthermore, for any merchandise currently held in 
inventory, the trading companies would have already sold this 
merchandise if not for their obligation to sell such merchandise at 
prices above the reference price established under the Suspension 
Agreement. Additionally, the trading companies paid duty on 
``commissions'' earned as agents. Since CSN and USIMINAS are using 
trading companies as ``agents,'' they argue that the sale to the first 
unaffiliated party in the United States is the sale to the end 
customer, not the trading company.
    During verification, we were able to confirm that the trading 
companies solicit and interact directly with the U.S. customers. Both 
CSN and USIMINAS negotiate a price that they charge the trading 
companies. Although both CSN and USIMINAS claim that the end customer 
is their customer, we found that the trading companies have the power 
to negotiate and set the price and terms of the sale to the U.S. 
customer with few restrictions (e.g., it must be above the reference 
price and for USIMINAS, the trading company does not have unlimited 
freedom to raise the DDP price to any level). CSN and USIMINAS have 
indicated that the trading companies are compensated by a commission. 
However, the commission they refer to is simply the difference between 
the price charged to the end customer by the trading company and the 
sum of the price charged to the trading company by the mills plus any 
expenses that the trading company pays (e.g., duty, U.S. brokerage and 
handling, etc.). Both companies have indicated that there is no set 
formula or method for determining this difference. In addition, the 
companies have indicated that the trading company could have a negative 
commission. Therefore, we find that this claimed commission reflects 
the profit on the subsequent sale by the trading company rather than a 
commission to the trading company.
    We also found that both CSN and USIMINAS invoice the trading 
companies when the merchandise is shipped from the mill, whereas the 
trading companies do not invoice the end customer until after the end 
customer receives the merchandise. Consequently, there is often a 
lengthy gap between these invoices. In cases where the end customer 
cancels the sale before delivery, we found that the trading companies 
are responsible for warehousing the merchandise and for selling the 
merchandise. For these sales, the trading companies would have already 
paid the mill, and there is no indication that the mill would reimburse 
the trading companies for the payment it made on a canceled sale. 
Accordingly, we find that, inconsistent with an agency relationship, 
the trading companies bear the risk of loss for unpaid sales. While the 
invoices and sales contracts indicate that the trading companies are 
holding themselves out as agents on behalf of the mill (CSN or 
USIMINAS), we found no other documentation supporting this fact. In 
addition, neither company had a written agreement with their trading 
companies to act as their agents. While the absence of a written 
agreement is not dispositive of an agency relationship, we find that 
nothing in the record supports the conclusion that either CSN or 
USIMINAS controls or directs the trading companies in their 
transactions with end users.
    Based upon the facts outlined above, we preliminarily determine 
that for these sales and for purposes of this suspension agreement, the 
first sale to an unaffiliated party in the United States is the sale 
from the exporter to the trading companies. Therefore, for these sales 
we have compared the prices to the trading companies (plus any other 
charges, not included in the price to the trading company, incurred in 
bringing the steel to the first customs port of discharge in the U.S. 
market) to the applicable reference prices. We have also used the price 
to the trading companies in calculating export price.

Date of Sale

    As stated in 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department normally will use 
invoice date as the date of sale unless another date better reflects 
the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material 
terms of sale. Both CSN and USIMINAS/COSIPA reported the date of the 
nota fiscal (i.e., the date the product leaves the factory) as the home 
market date of sale, and the date of the order confirmation as the date 
of the U.S. sale.
    CSN maintains that it uses the date of the nota fiscal for home 
market sales in its accounting records because this is the date on 
which material terms of sale are finalized. The Department used the 
nota fiscal date in the investigation (see Final Determination at 
38768). CSN states that there have been no significant changes to CSN's 
sales process since the investigation.
    For its U.S. sales, CSN reported the order confirmation date, 
stating that it is the date of sale defined in the Suspension Agreement 
even though CSN uses the commercial invoice date in its normal 
accounting records. The Suspension Agreement defines the date of sale 
as the date on which a signatory confirms an order for a fixed quantity 
of hot-rolled steel at a fixed price (see Suspension Agreement, 64 FR 
38793).
    USIMINAS and COSIPA maintain that for their home market sales, the 
nota fiscal is the date on which the material terms of sale are first 
finalized. The nota fiscal is also used by both companies' accounting 
systems to register home market sales.
    For their U.S. sales, USIMINAS and COSIPA also reported the order 
confirmation date as date of sale stating that it is the date of sale 
defined in the Suspension Agreement.
    Based upon the respondent's arguments for these preliminary 
results, we have used the dates of sale as reported for all three 
companies.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine the amount by which estimated normal value exceeds 
export price, the Department compared the EP to the NV, as described in 
the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice 
below. In accordance with sections 777A(d)(2) and 734(c)(1)(B)of the 
Act, the Department calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV 
and compared these to individual U.S. entries of each exporter.

Downstream Sales

    In a letter dated November 1, 2000, USIMINAS, COSIPA and CSN 
informed the Department of their intent not to report resales by their 
affiliated companies as part of their questionnaire responses.

CSN

    On November 28, 2000 and revised on March 8, 2001, CSN provided 
aggregate sales information of its affiliated reseller. According to 
CSN, its reseller's sales of products made from hot-rolled steel are 
non-subject merchandise and/or would not match to the U.S. sales. The 
remaining sales by the reseller account for a small percentage of CSN's

[[Page 41506]]

total home market sales. We have not required CSN to report resales by 
their affiliates.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    In the USIMINAS/COSIPA response to the Department's questionnaire, 
these companies did not report their downstream sales. They cited the 
following reasons: (1) USIMINAS/COSIPA sales to their affiliated 
distributors represent a relatively small portion of the total sales of 
USIMINAS/COSIPA; (2) most of the merchandise the affiliated 
distributors resell is different from what the mills export to the 
United States; (3) the Department's determination from the 
investigation that the sales by the distributors are at different 
levels of trade from those by the mills. USIMINAS' and COSIPA's sales 
to affiliated resellers in the home market accounted for more than 5% 
of total sales, and the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated 
February 7, 2001 asked USIMINAS and COSIPA to provide aggregate sales 
data for each of their affiliated resellers. In the March 2, 2001 
response, USIMINAS and COSIPA provided aggregate sales information of 
their affiliated resellers.
    Based upon the information on the record, we preliminarily find 
that sales by the affiliated resellers are at a separate level of trade 
from the direct sales by the mills. Numerous direct mill sales are 
identical to or very similar to U.S. sales and are at the same LOT, and 
are available for matching to the U.S. sales. Therefore, we have 
preliminarily determined that the sales by affiliated resellers would 
likely be used to match to few, if any, U.S. sales, and we have not 
required respondents to report resales by their affiliates.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

    The Department based its calculations on EP, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold by 
the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States prior to importation. Furthermore, the Department 
calculated EP based on packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States.
    The Department made company-specific adjustments as follows.

CSN

    The Department made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for international freight, foreign inland freight, and 
foreign brokerage and handling incurred by CSN on its U.S. sales, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    The Department made deductions from the starting price, where 
appropriate, for the following movement expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: foreign inland freight, international 
freight, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, the Department calculated NV as noted in the 
``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections 
of this notice.

Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV 
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales), the Department compared each of the respondents' 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume 
of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since each of the respondents' aggregate 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater 
than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject 
merchandise, the Department determined that the home market was viable 
for all respondents. Therefore, the Department has based NV on home 
market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade.

Arm's Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's 
length prices (if any) were excluded from our analysis because the 
Department considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. 
See 19 CFR 351.102. To test whether these sales were made at arm's 
length prices, the Department compared, on a model-specific basis, the 
prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where, for the 
tested models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party 
were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to unaffiliated 
parties, the Department determined that sales made to the affiliated 
party were at arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where 
no price ratio could be constructed for an affiliated customer because 
identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, the 
Department was unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's 
length prices and, therefore, excluded them from our less than fair 
value analysis. See, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993). Where the exclusion of 
such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison 
product, the Department made a comparison to the next most similar 
product.

Cost of Production Analysis

    The Department initiated an investigation to determine in fact 
whether the respondents made home market sales during the POR at prices 
below their cost of production (COP) within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act. Based on the fact that the Department had 
disregarded sales in the less than fair value investigation (the most 
recently completed investigation/review of CSN and USIMINAS/ COSIPA at 
the time of initiation in this review) because they were made below the 
COP, the Department has reasonable grounds, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, to believe or suspect that respondents 
made home market sales in this review at prices below the cost of 
producing the merchandise.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of each (CSN and combined USIMINAS/COSIPA) 
respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like 
product, plus an amount for SG&A, including interest expenses, and 
packing costs.
    We used the information from each respondent's section D 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses to calculate 
COP. We compared the weighted-average COP for each respondent to home 
market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. In determining whether to disregard 
home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether 
such sales were made (i) in substantial quantities over an extended 
period of time, and (ii) at prices which permitted the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, 
we compared COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement 
charges, billing adjustments, taxes, and discounts and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 
twenty percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at 
prices less than the

[[Page 41507]]

COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because 
we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where twenty percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in substantial quantities, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In addition, we 
determined that such below-cost sales were made within an extended 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In 
such cases, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we also 
determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product 
were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product 
and relied on sales of similar merchandise to match, if available (see 
CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed. Cir.)).
    Our cost test for each respondent revealed that less than twenty 
percent of each respondent's home market sales of certain products were 
at prices below their respective COP. Therefore, we retained all such 
sales in our analysis. For other products, more than twenty percent of 
each respondent's sales were at below-cost prices. In such cases we 
disregarded the below-cost sales, while retaining the above-cost sales 
for our analysis. See Preliminary Analysis Memoranda, July 31, 2001.

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
including interest expenses, and profit. 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 respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade for consumption in the foreign country. We used the CV data 
each respondent supplied in its section D questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We calculated NV based on FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at 
arm's-length prices. Consistent with past practice, we adjusted NV for 
the full amount of IPI and ICMS taxes collected on the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act, 
because these are VAT taxes. We made adjustments for differences in 
physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(iii) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) and(B) of the Act.

CSN

    For CSN, we based NV on prices of home market sales that passed the 
cost test. We made deductions for applicable billing adjustments, and 
certain taxes as discussed above. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act. We made COS adjustments for differences in credit, interest 
revenue, and warranty expenses, where appropriate.

USIMINAS/COSIPA

    For USIMINAS/COSIPA we based NV on prices of home market sales that 
passed the cost test. We made deductions for applicable billing 
adjustments, discounts, and taxes. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for inland freight, warehousing, and inland insurance, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made COS adjustments 
for imputed credit expense, interest revenue, and warranties.
    Based on verification, we have made adjustments to home market 
warehousing, U.S. warranties and U.S. and home market imputed credit 
expenses. We have also disallowed COSIPA's home market technical 
services expenses as a direct selling expense. See USIMINAS/COSIPA 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, dated July 31, 2001.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
if we were unable to find a home market match of identical or similar 
merchandise. We calculated CV based on the costs of materials and 
fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and 
profit. In accordance with section 773(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we based 
SG&A expense and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the 
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in Brazil. 
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling 
expenses. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the 
Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign 
currencies into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate involves a 
fluctuation. It is the Department's practice to find that a fluctuation 
exists when the daily exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by 
2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the moving average of rates 
for the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation to have 
existed, we substitute the benchmark rate for the daily rate, in 
accordance with established practice. (For an explanation of this 
method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions (61 FR 9434, 
March 8, 1996).)

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The purpose of the review is to review the current status of, and 
compliance with, the terms of the Suspension Agreement.

Compliance With Section IV(E) of the Agreement

    Under the statute, the Department is required to review sales made 
under the Agreement to determine whether the terms of the Agreement are 
being complied with. Specifically, section IV(E) of the Agreement 
requires that for each entry of each exporter the amount by which the 
estimated normal value exceeds the export price (or the constructed 
export price) will not exceed a specified amount. That limit is 15 
percent of the weighted average amount by which the estimated normal 
value exceeded the export price (or the constructed price) for all 
less-than-fair-value entries of the exporter examined during the course 
of the investigation.
    We examined the extent to which CSN or USIMINAS/COSIPA may have 
made sales that were not in compliance with this provision of the 
Agreement. To this end, we examined the number of sales which had 
margins that exceeded the limit established by the Agreement and the 
amount by which these sales exceeded this limit. As a result, we found 
that at least one company made sales at dumping margins that exceeded 
the limit

[[Page 41508]]

established by the Agreement and that neither the number of sales nor 
the amount by which they exceeded the limit was insignificant. On this 
basis, we cannot conclude that these sales inconsistent with the 
Agreement are inconsequential or inadvertent. See USIMINAS/COSIPA and 
CSN Preliminary Analysis Memoranda, dated July 31, 2001.
    We note that the respondents have taken issue with some aspects of 
our approach in analyzing these sales. Specifically, the respondents 
argue that they are affiliated with the trading companies through which 
they sold to the United States and therefore the appropriate basis for 
our analysis are the sales by the trading companies. However, even if 
the Department were to determine that the trading companies acted as 
agents and that the first unaffiliated U.S. customers are the trading 
companies' customers, as respondents have argued, the extent to which 
the dumping margins for entries from CSN and USIMINAS/COSIPA would 
exceed 15 percent of the weighted average margin for CSN and USIMINAS/
COSIPA in the LTFV investigation would not be insignificant. Therefore, 
we would still have found that there were sales in violation of the 
Agreement.

Compliance With Section IV(A) of the Agreement

    Section IV(A) of the agreement contains the reference price 
requirements for merchandise subject to the agreement. We compared the 
price charged by the mill to the first unaffiliated customer in the 
United States to the reference price for the applicable period for that 
sale (based upon the order confirmation date). The Suspension Agreement 
states that the reference price includes all transportation charges to 
the U.S. port of entry, together with port fees, duties, offloading, 
wharfage and other charges incurred in bringing the steel to the first 
customs port of discharge in the U.S. market. In addition, the 
Suspension Agreement stipulates that if the sale for export is on terms 
that do not include these expenses, the Signatories will ensure that 
the actual terms are equivalent to a price that is not lower than the 
reference price. Therefore, we have added to the price to the first 
unaffiliated U.S. customer any of these charges that were not included 
in the price terms to that first unaffiliated U.S. customer, and we 
compared this total to the applicable reference price.
    In our analysis, we examined the number of sales and the amount by 
which they were made at prices below the reference price established by 
the Suspension Agreement. As a result, we found that for at least one 
company, neither the number of sales made below the reference price 
established by the Suspension Agreement nor the amount by which they 
were below the reference price was insignificant. On this basis, we 
cannot conclude that these sales inconsistent with the Agreement are 
inconsequential or inadvertent. See USIMINAS/COSIPA and CSN's 
Preliminary Analysis Memoranda, dated July 31, 2001.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that CSN and USIMINAS/COSIPA 
have made sales in violation of these terms of the Agreement. Pursuant 
to Article X of the Agreement, the Department may engage in 
consultations with any Signatory to the Agreement regarding this 
determination. In the event that this determination is confirmed in the 
final results of this review, we will take whatever action we deem 
appropriate under section 734(i) of the Act, the Department regulations 
and Article XI of the Agreement.

Disclosure/Briefing Schedule

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of 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. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with 
the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the 
argument (no longer that five pages including footnotes) and (3) a 
table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide the Department with an 
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. 
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.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
Section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-19911 Filed 8-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P