[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47163-47172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-22781]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-815 & A-580-816]


Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From the Republic of Korea; Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

[[Page 47164]]


ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from four respondents and from the 
petitioners, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is 
conducting (the seventh) administrative reviews of the antidumping duty 
orders on certain cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products from Korea. The corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products 
review covers four manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise, while the cold-rolled carbon steel flat products review 
covers three. The period of review for cold-rolled products is August 
1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, and the period of review for 
corrosion-resistant products is August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000.
    We preliminarily determine that a dumping margin exists for certain 
products and companies for their sales in the United States. See 
``Preliminary Results of the Review'' section of this notice. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties on 
entries of the affected companies' merchandise during the period of 
review (``POR'').
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlene Hewitt (Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. 
(``Dongbu'')), Robert Bolling (Pohang Iron and Steel Co. (``POSCO''), 
Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (``POCOS''), and Pohang Steel Industries 
Co., Ltd. (``PSI'')--(collectively, ``the POSCO Group'')), Sarah 
Ellerman (SeAH Steel Corporation (``SeAH'')), Mesbah Motamed (Union 
Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Union'')) or James Doyle, Enforcement 
Group III--Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-1385 (Hewitt), 482-3434 (Bolling), 482-6134 (Ellerman), 482-
1382 (Motamed), or 482-0159 (Doyle).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Background

    The Department published antidumping duty orders on certain cold-
rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea on 
August 19, 1993. See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993). On August 16, 
2000, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty orders for the 1999-
2000 review period. See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation, 65 FR 49962 (August 16, 2000). On August 31, 
2000, respondents Dongbu, Union, and the POSCO Group requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
orders on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from Korea. In a 
separate letter on August 31, 2000, the POSCO Group also requested 
partial revocation of the antidumping duty order of cold-rolled carbon 
steel flat products. On August 31, 2000, respondents Dongbu, Union, the 
POSCO Group, and SeAH requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products. On August 31, 2000, petitioners 
in the original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigations (AK 
Steel Corporation; Bethlehem Steel Corporation; Inland Steel 
Industries, Inc.; LTV Steel Company; National Steel Corporation; and 
U.S. Steel Group-a-Unit of USX Corporation) requested that the 
Department conduct administrative reviews of the antidumping duty 
orders on cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products from Korea: the cold-rolled respondents; Dongbu, the POSCO 
Group, and Union; and the corrosion-resistant respondents; Dongbu, the 
POSCO Group, SeAH, and Union. We initiated these reviews on September 
26, 2000. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 65 FR 58733 
(October 2, 2000).
    The Department issued Sections A, B, C, and D questionnaires to all 
respondents on October 4, 2000, with the exception of SeAH, to which 
the Department issued Section A, B, and C. On December 15, 2000, the 
Department revoked the antidumping order on cold-rolled carbon steel 
products from Korea pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, effective 
January 1, 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders on Certain Carbon Steel Products From Canada, Germany, Korea, 
the Netherlands, and Sweden, 65 FR 78467 (December 15, 2000). At that 
time, the Department instructed all interested parties to revise their 
submissions to reflect the new POR for cold-rolled products. The 
resulting POR for cold-rolled products is August 1, 1999 through 
December 31, 1999. The Department's revocation of the antidumping order 
for cold-rolled products renders the POSCO Group's request for 
revocation moot.
    Under section 751(a)(3) of the Act the Department may extend the 
deadline for completion of administrative reviews if it determines that 
it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time 
limit of 365 days. On January 30, 2001, the Department extended the 
time limits for the preliminary results in these cases to August 31, 
2001. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews: Extension of Time Limit, 66 FR 8197 
(January 30, 2001).

Dongbu

    On November 8, 2000, Dongbu reported that it made sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of review in its 
response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. On December 
18, 2000, Dongbu submitted its responses to Sections B, C, and D of the 
Department's questionnaire. On March 15, 2001, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire for Sections A and B of Dongbu's 
questionnaire response. On April 4, 2001, Dongbu submitted its response 
to the Department's first supplemental questionnaire. On May 30, 2001, 
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for Sections C and D 
of Dongbu's questionnaire response. On June 20, 2001, Dongbu submitted 
its response to the Department's Section C and D supplemental 
questionnaire. On June 22, 2001, the Department issued its second 
supplemental questionnaire for Sections A through D. On July 2, 2001,

[[Page 47165]]

Dongbu submitted its response to the second supplemental questionnaire.

The POSCO Group

    On November 3, 2000, POSCO requested that the Department not 
require it to report downstream service center sales for this POR 
because the facts are different from previous administrative review. On 
November 9, 2000, petitioners provided a letter to the Department 
stating that the Department should verify the POSCO Group's statement 
that the facts have changed in this POR, and determine whether the 
POSCO Group should report its downstream service center sales. On 
November 13, 2000, the POSCO Group reported that it made sales of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review in 
its response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. On 
December 18, 2000, the POSCO Group submitted its responses to Sections 
B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire. On February 8, 2001, the 
Department determined that the POSCO Group only had to report certain 
of its affiliated service center sales. See Memo from Robert Bolling to 
Edward Yang, dated February 8, 2001. On March 2, 2001, the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire for Sections A, B, and C of the 
POSCO Group's questionnaire response. On March 12, 2001, the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire for Section D of the POSCO Group's 
questionnaire response. On March 30, 2001, the POSCO Group submitted 
its response to the Department's first set of supplemental 
questionnaires and its service center section B response. On April 9, 
2001, the POSCO Group submitted its response to the Department's 
Section D supplemental questionnaire. On June 18, 2001, the Department 
issued its second supplemental questionnaire for Sections A through C 
and the POSCO Group's downstream sales. On July 10, 2001, the POSCO 
Group submitted its response to the second supplemental questionnaire.

SeAH

    On November 13, 2000, SeAH submitted its response to Section A of 
the Department's questionnaire. On December 18, 2000, SeAH submitted 
its response to Sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire.
    On December 26, 2001, petitioners alleged SeAH made home market 
sales at prices below the cost of production. On March 7, 2001, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding Sections A, B, 
and C of SeAH's questionnaire response. On March 12, 2001, we initiated 
a cost of production investigation of SeAH's sales and requested that 
SeAH complete Section D of the Department's questionnaire. See 
Memorandum from Sarah Ellerman to Edward Yang, Allegation of Sales 
Below the Cost of Production for SeAH Steel Corporation, dated March 
12, 2001. On March 21, 2001, SeAH submitted its response to the 
Department's Sections A, B, and C supplemental questionnaire. On April 
18, 2001, SeAH submitted its Section D response to the Department's 
questionnaire. On May 7, 2001, SeAH submitted its cost reconciliation. 
On June 15, 2001, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire 
regarding Section D of SeAH's questionnaire response. On June 29, 2001, 
SeAH submitted its response to the Section D supplemental 
questionnaire. On July 3, 2001, the Department issued a verification 
outline to SeAH. We verified sales and cost information provided by 
SeAH from July 10, 2001 to July 14, 2001. On July 23 and July 30, 2001, 
SeAH submitted minor corrections to its response. On July 5, 2001, the 
Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to SeAH. SeAH 
submitted its response to the third supplemental questionnaire on July 
26, 2001.

Union

    On November 8, 2000, Union reported that it made sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of review in its 
response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. Union 
submitted its response to Sections B, C, and D on December 18, 2000. On 
March 2, 2001, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for 
Sections A, B, and C, and on March 13, 2001, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire for Section D. Union submitted its Sections 
A, B, and C response on March 23, 2001, and its Section D response on 
April 10, 2001. Following the Department's second supplemental 
questionnaire for Sections A through D, Union submitted its 
supplemental response on June 6, 2001. Finally, on July 24, 2001, Union 
submitted its response to the Department's June 22, 2001, request for 
information.
    The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Period of Review

    For corrosion-resistant carbon steel products, the POR is August 1, 
1999 through July 31, 2000. As a result of the Department's recent 
revocation of the antidumping order for cold-rolled carbon steel 
products pursuant to 751(d)(2) of the Act, the POR for cold-rolled 
carbon steel products is August 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999. See 
discussion supra at page 4. These reviews cover entries from Dongbu, 
SeAH, Union, and the POSCO Group (see ``Affiliated Parties'' section 
below).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by SeAH for use in our preliminary results. We 
used standard verification procedures, including examination of 
relevant accounting and production records and original source 
documents provided by SeAH. We verified sales and cost information 
provided by SeAH from July 10, 2001 to July 14, 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. See Sales and Cost 
Verification Report from Sarah Ellerman and Michael Strollo through Jim 
Doyle to the File, dated August 31, 2001.

Scope of the Reviews

    The review of ``certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products'' 
covers cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat-rolled products, of 
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether 
or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic 
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed 
layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths 
which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 
0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness 
or, if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which 
exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as 
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') 
under item numbers 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 
7209.16.0090, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530, 
7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550, 7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 
7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 
7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 
7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 
7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080,

[[Page 47166]]

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.50.0015, 
7215.50.0060, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 
7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 
7217.90.5090. Included in this review are flat-rolled products of non-
rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is certain 
shadow mask steel, i.e., aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil that 
is open-coil annealed, has a carbon content of less than 0.002 percent, 
is of 0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to 30 inches in width, and 
has an ultra flat, isotropic surface.
    The review of ``certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products'' covers flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular 
shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals 
such as zinc, aluminum, or 
zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not 
corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other 
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils 
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 
0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness 
less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and 
which measures at least 10 times the thickness or, if of a thickness of 
4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters 
and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in 
the HTS under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 
7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 
7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 
7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 
7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in 
this review are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section 
where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process 
(i.e., products which have been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, 
products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from 
this review are: flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated 
with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne 
plate''), or both chromium and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), 
whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other 
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating; clad 
products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite 
thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at 
least twice the thickness; and certain clad stainless flat-rolled 
products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel 
flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness 
that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides 
with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.
    These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.

Transactions Reviewed

    For these preliminary results, we have accepted PSI's reporting 
methodology for overruns and have excluded reported overrun sales in 
the home market from our sales comparisons because such sales were 
outside the ordinary course of trade. This is consistent with the 
methodology we accepted in prior reviews. However, the Department may 
conduct verification of PSI's overrun methodology in this review.

Dongbu

    We have reviewed Dongbu's original and supplemental questionnaire 
submissions, and according to our analysis of those submissions, the 
Department has determined that Dongbu had no ``downstream'' sales by 
affiliated resellers in the home market during the POR. Therefore, the 
Department reviewed all home market transactions in its determination 
of NV.

The POSCO Group

    According to 19 CFR 351.403(d), downstream sales to home market 
affiliates accounting for less than five percent of total sales are 
normally excluded from the normal value (``NV'') calculation. See also 
773(a)(5) of the Act. In a November 3, 2000 letter to the Department, 
POSCO stated that it sold its interest in the majority of its 
affiliated resellers/service centers. However, as the POSCO Group's 
sales to its remaining affiliated resellers exceeded the Department's 
five percent threshold, the Department has required the POSCO Group to 
report the home market downstream sales for these affiliated service 
centers.
    The Department examined whether the sales the POSCO Group made to 
these affiliated service centers were comparable to the price at which 
POSCO Group sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 
(i.e. ``the arm's length test''). See 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test 
whether the POSCO Group's sales were made at arm's length, we compared 
the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. Where 
prices to the affiliated parties were on average 99.5 percent or more 
of the price to the unaffiliated party, we determined that those sales 
made to the related party were at arm's length and reviewed these sales 
in our determination of normal value. If the sales to the affiliated 
service centers did not pass the arm's length test, we reviewed the 
resales made by these affiliated service centers in our determination 
of normal value. Where the arm's length test could not be applied 
because identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, 
we were unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's length 
and, therefore, excluded them from our analysis. See 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, we made comparisons to the next 
most similar model.

SeAH

    Based on our review of the submission by SeAH, the Department 
reviewed all home market transactions in its determination of NV.

Union

    Based on our review of the submission by Union, the Department 
reviewed all home market transactions in its determination of NV.

Affiliated Parties

    For purposes of these reviews, we are treating POSCO, POCOS, and 
PSI as affiliated parties and have ``collapsed'' them, i.e., treated 
them as a single producer of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat 
products (POSCO and PSI) and certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel 
flat products (POSCO, POCOS, and PSI). We refer to the collapsed 
respondent as the POSCO Group. POSCO, POCOS, and PSI were treated as 
collapsed in a

[[Page 47167]]

previous segment of these proceedings. See, e.g., Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Korea, 61 FR 51882, 51884 (October 4, 1996). The 
POSCO Group has submitted no new information which has caused us to 
reconsider that determination.
    As we have determined in past administrative reviews, we are 
treating Union and Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (``DKI'') as a single 
producer of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products. See Certain 
Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
60 FR 65284 (December 19, 1995). Additionally, we are treating Union 
and DKI as a single producer of certain corrosion-resistant carbon 
steel flat products. See Collapsing Memorandum from Marlene Hewitt to 
Edward Yang, dated August 31, 1999; Memorandum from Marlene Hewitt to 
the File, dated August 15, 2001. No new information has been submitted 
which has caused us to reconsider that determination.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
cold-rolled carbon steel flat products produced by the respondents, 
covered by the descriptions in the ``Scope of the Reviews'' section of 
this notice, supra, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be 
foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales of cold-rolled carbon steel flat 
products. Likewise, we considered all corrosion-resistant carbon steel 
flat products produced by the respondents and sold in the home market 
during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to corrosion-resistant 
carbon steel flat products sold in the United States.
    For the ``quality'' product characteristic, Dongbu reported an 
additional sub-code. The Department has included the additional code 
that Dongbu reported in the aforementioned category in the Department's 
product matching methodology. See Memorandum from Marlene Hewitt to the 
File: Preliminary Results Analysis Memo, dated August 31, 2001.
    Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade 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 listed in Appendix V of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product 
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondent. Where sales were made in 
the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. market 
(theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities to the 
same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the 
respondents, before making our fair-value comparisons.

Normal-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain cold-rolled and corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products by the respondents to the United 
States were made at less than normal value, we compared the export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to the normal 
value (``NV''), as described in the ``Export Price/Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-
average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. 
transactions.

Date of Sale

    It is the Department's practice normally to use the invoice date as 
the date of sale, although we may use a date other than the invoice 
date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of 
sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). We have preliminarily determined that 
there is no reason to depart from the Department's treatment of invoice 
date as the date of sale for respondents Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and 
Union. Consistent with prior reviews, for home market sales, we used 
the reported date of the invoice from the Korean manufacturer; for U.S. 
sales we have followed the Department's methodology from the prior 
reviews, and have based date of sale on invoice date from the U.S. 
affiliate, unless that date was subsequent to the date of shipment to 
the unaffiliated customer from Korea, in which case that shipment date 
is the date of sale. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Preliminary Results, 65 FR 
54197, 54201 (September 7, 2000), and see Certain Cold-Rolled and 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 3540 (January 
16, 2001). Additionally, SeAH reported its date of sale in the home 
market to be the invoice date and its date of sale in the U.S. market 
to be the purchase order date. At verification, the Department 
confirmed SeAH's claim that purchase order date is the proper date of 
sale for all of its U.S. sales because the material terms of sale are 
set at the purchase order date and not the invoice date. See Sales and 
Cost Verification Report from Sarah Ellerman and Michael Strollo 
through Jim Doyle to the File, dated August 31, 2001. Thus, we have 
preliminarily determined to use invoice date in the home market and 
purchase order date in the U.S. as date of sale for SeAH.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

    We calculated the price of U.S. sales based on constructed export 
price, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. The Act defines 
the term ``constructed export price'' as ``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).'' In 
contrast, ``export price'' is defined as ``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.'' Sections 772(a) and (b) of 
the Act (emphasis added).
    In determining whether to classify U.S. sales as either export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP''), the Department 
must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the U.S. 
sales process, and assess whether the reviewed sales were made ``in the 
United States'' for purposes of section 772(b) of the Act. In the 
instant case, the record establishes that Dongbu's, the POSCO Group's, 
and Union's affiliates in the United States (1) took title to the 
subject merchandise; and (2) invoiced and received payment from the 
unaffiliated U.S. customers. Thus, the Department has determined that 
these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP transactions. 
Additionally, the record establishes that SeAH has an affiliate in the 
United States which invoiced and received payment in the United States 
from the unaffiliated customer for SeAH's U.S. sales. Thus, the 
Department has determined that SeAH's U.S. sales should be classified 
as CEP transactions.
    For Dongbu, the POSCO Group, SeAH and Union, we calculated CEP 
based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. 
Where appropriate,

[[Page 47168]]

we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, 
foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. warehousing expenses, U.S. wharfage, 
U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, loading expenses, 
other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S. Customs duties, commissions, 
credit expenses, letter of credit expenses, warranty expenses, other 
direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred in the 
United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the country of 
manufacture and the United States associated with economic activity in 
the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 
adjustment for CEP profit. Where appropriate, we added interest revenue 
to the gross unit price.
    In order to ensure that we have accounted for all appropriate U.S. 
interest expenses (i.e. both imputed and actual) without double-
counting, we have utilized the following interest expense methodology. 
As in the prior review, in our U.S. indirect selling expenses, we have 
included net financial expenses incurred by the respondent's U.S. 
affiliates; however, we added U.S. interest expenses only after 
deducting U.S. imputed credit expenses and U.S. inventory carrying 
costs, so as to eliminate the possibility of double-counting U.S. 
interest expenses.
    Consistent with the Department's normal practice, we added the 
reported duty drawback to the gross unit price. We did so in accordance 
with the Department's long-standing test, which requires: (1) That the 
import duty and rebate be directly linked to, and dependent upon, one 
another; and (2) that the company claiming the adjustment demonstrate 
that there were sufficient imports of imported raw materials to account 
for the duty drawback received on the exports of the manufactured 
product. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Korea: Preliminary Results, 65 FR 54197, 54202 
(September 7, 2000).

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade.
    Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, discounts, inland freight 
(offset, where applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and 
packing. Additionally, only for the POSCO Group, we made a deduction 
for affiliated foreign service centers' adjustments. We made 
adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in credit 
expenses (offset, where applicable, by interest income), warranty 
expenses, post-sale warehousing, and differences in weight basis. We 
also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home market indirect 
selling expenses and inventory carrying costs to offset U.S. 
commissions in CEP comparisons.
    We also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to NV for 
differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with the Department's 
practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale observation 
resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent 
of the cost of manufacturing (``COM'') of the U.S. product, we based NV 
on constructed value (``CV''). See 19 CFR 351.411.

Cost of Production/Constructed Value

    At the time the questionnaires were issued in these reviews, the 
fifth annual administrative reviews were the most recently completed 
segments of these proceedings. In accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, and consistent with the Department's 
practice, because we disregarded certain below-cost sales by Dongbu, 
the POSCO Group, and Union in the fifth reviews (SeAH was not reviewed 
in the fifth administrative review), we found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that these respondents made sales in the home market 
at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. See Certain 
Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Korea: Preliminary Results, 65 FR 54197, 54203 (September 7, 2000). We, 
therefore, initiated cost investigations with regard to Dongbu, the 
POSCO Group, and Union in order to determine whether these respondents 
made home market sales during the POR at prices below their cost of 
production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. Additionally, on March 12, 2001, following petitioners' allegation 
of sales below the cost of production, we initiated a cost of 
production investigation of SeAH's sales. See Memorandum from Sarah 
Ellerman to Edward Yang, Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production for SeAH Steel Corporation, dated March 12, 2001; See Letter 
from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom to Secretary Mineta, dated 
December 26, 2001.
    Before making concordance matches, we conducted the COP analysis 
described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated a company-specific COP for Dongbu, the POSCO Group, 
SeAH, and Union based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-
market selling expenses, general, and administrative expenses 
(``SG&A''), and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of 
the Act. We relied on Dongbu's, the POSCO Group's, SeAH's and Union's 
information as submitted.

B. Test of Home-Market Prices

    For the POSCO Group, SeAH, and Union, we used each of respondents' 
weighted-average COP, as adjusted (see ``Calculation of COP'' above), 
for the period July 1999 to June 2000, as reported. Dongbu's COP and CV 
figures were calculated based on costs incurred by Dongbu during the 
period July 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999 and July 1, 1999 through 
June 30, 2000, as reported, for cold-rolled and corrosion resistant 
products respectively. We compared the weighted-average COP figures to 
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 below the COP, as required under section 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 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. On a product-
specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-market prices (not 
including VAT), less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and 
rebates.

C. Results of 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 were at prices less 
than the 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 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales

[[Page 47169]]

of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
found that sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' 
for an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and were not at prices which would 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In such cases, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated 
constructed value (CV) for Dongbu, the POSCO Group, SeAH, and Union 
based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
SG&A, including interest expenses, U.S. packing costs, and profit. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and 
profit on the actual 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 the foreign country. 
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home-market selling 
expenses. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home-market 
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in CEP 
comparisons.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market, or 
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses 
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, 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 difference in levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust 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, 61732 (November 19, 
1997).
    In reviewing the selling functions reported by the respondents, we 
examined all types of selling functions and activities reported in 
respondent's questionnaire response on LOT and during verification. In 
analyzing whether separate LOTs existed in this review, we found that 
no single selling function was sufficient to warrant a separate LOT in 
the home market. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final 
Rule, 63 FR 65347 (November 25, 1998).

Dongbu

    In its questionnaire response, Dongbu stated that there were no 
significant differences in its selling activities by customer 
categories within or between the home market and the United States. 
Therefore, Dongbu stated that it was not distinguishing between LOT for 
these reviews and that it was not claiming a level of trade adjustment 
nor claiming a CEP offset. See Dongbu's November 8, 2000 Section A at 
16. 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.
    Our analysis of the questionnaire responses detailing the selling 
functions provided by Dongbu in the home market shows that Dongbu sold 
subject merchandise through one channel of distribution to two classes 
of customers in the home market: distributor/service centers and end 
user. See Dongbu's November 8, 2000 Section A at 12. Dongbu reported 
that there were no differences in its selling functions performed for 
the different classes of customers and its support services were the 
same for all classes, including limited warehousing, processing of 
claims for delivery of defective merchandise, after sales services and 
warranties, freight and delivery arrangements, and credit terms. See 
Dongbu's December 18, 2000 Response.
    In the U.S. market, Dongbu reported two channels of distribution in 
the United States: 1) Dongbu Steel to Dongbu Corporation to Dongbu USA 
to U.S. customer; 2) Dongbu Steel to Dongbu USA to U.S. customer. See 
Dongbu's November 8, 2000 Section A at 12. Dongbu stated that the U.S. 
customers included distributors or service centers, and end users. 
Dongbu claimed that the scope of selling functions performed in 
connection with U.S. sales were identical for both end users and 
distributors and there were no significant difference in selling 
activities by customer categories within or between each market. Thus 
Dongbu performed the same sales-related activity in both channels of 
distribution, including credit terms, inventory maintenance, 
warranties, and freight. Based on Dongbu's record of sales related 
activities in its two channels of distribution, we preliminary 
determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    We also note that the selling functions described by Dongbu in 
these reviews are consistent with the selling functions described for 
the previous reviews of these orders, in which we determined no 
distinct levels of trade. See Notice of Preliminary Results: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea, 64 FR 48767, 48772 (September 9, 
1999) and 66 FR 3540 (January 16, 2000).
    We have analyzed the evidence, and determined that the selling 
functions performed on sales to the U.S. importer are the same as 
provided in the home market. As a result, we preliminary determine that 
the selling functions between both markets do not significantly differ, 
and therefore, sales in the home market and the U.S. market were made 
at the same level of trade. Therefore, all price comparisons are at the 
same level of trade and any adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7) of 
the Act is unwarranted.

The POSCO Group

    In the current review, the POSCO Group stated that it is not 
claiming a level of trade adjustment, nor has it claimed a CEP offset. 
See The POSCO Group's December 18, 2000 Section B at 53. To determine 
whether an adjustment is necessary, in accordance with the principles 
discussed above, we examined information regarding the distribution 
systems in both the United States and home markets, including the 
selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.
    In its questionnaire responses, the POSCO Group stated that its 
home-market sales by affiliated service centers were at a different 
level of trade than its other home-market sales and its U.S.

[[Page 47170]]

sales. See The POSCO Group's November 13, 2000 Section A at 29. The 
respondent indicated that the service centers provide certain selling 
functions to all of their customers, while POSCO, POCOS and PSI provide 
a different set of selling functions to all of their customers 
(including the service centers).
    In order to confirm the presence of separate levels of trade within 
or between the U.S. and home markets, we examined the respondent's 
questionnaire responses for indications of substantive differences in 
selling and marketing functions. See the preamble to section 351.412 of 
the Department's regulations, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997).
    In its November 13, 2000 Section A responses, the POSCO Group 
claimed that there are two channels of distribution in the home market: 
one channel of distribution consists of sales made by POSCO, POCOS, and 
PSI, while the second channel of distribution consists of the sales 
made by the affiliated service centers. The Department has reviewed 
both channels of distribution of the POSCO Group and the related 
selling functions. In both channels of distribution, the POSCO Group 
performed the following sales-related activities in both channels of 
distribution: sales and marketing; freight and delivery arrangement; 
computer, legal, and accounting assistance and business-systems 
development assistance; advertising, and warranties. See The POSCO 
Group's November 13, 2000 Section A at 32-36. Next, we analyzed the 
selling functions of the affiliated service centers and determined that 
the only substantive additional function that the affiliated service 
centers perform is the slitting and shearing of coils. As this is not a 
selling function but rather a manufacturing operation, we have 
preliminary determined that the selling functions of the POSCO Group 
and affiliated service centers in the home market are essentially the 
same and thus made at the same level of trade. See Certain Cold-Rolled 
and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: 
Preliminary Results, 65 FR 54197, 54201 (September 7, 2000), and see 
Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
66 FR 3540 (January 16, 2001).
    In the U.S. market, the POSCO Group reported one channel of 
distribution. See The POSCO Group's November 13, 2000 Section A at 31. 
In this U.S. channel of distribution, the POSCO Group performed the 
following sales-related activities: Freight and delivery arrangement; 
computer, legal, and accounting assistance and business-systems 
development assistance; market research; warranties; sales force 
development and end user contact and support; advertising; and quality 
control. See The POSCO Group's November 13, 2000 Section A at 32-36. We 
have analyzed the record and preliminary find that this is the only 
channel of distribution and thus level of trade in the U.S. market.
    Finally, we compared the selling functions in the home market to 
the and U.S. market and found that the POSCO Group performed the 
following selling functions in both markets: freight and delivery 
arrangement; computer, legal and accounting assistance and business-
systems development assistance; market research; warranties; sales 
force development and end user contact and support; advertising; and 
quality control. Additionally, the POSCO Group only has CEP sales in 
the U.S. market. As we have found the selling functions in both markets 
do not substantively differ (e.g., freight and warranties), we have 
preliminary determined that the selling functions performed on sales to 
the U.S. importer are the same as provided in the home market. Thus, we 
preliminary determine that sales within or between each market are made 
at the same level of trade and an adjustment pursuant to section 
773(a)(7) is unwarranted. This is consistent with our practices in past 
reviews. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Korea: Preliminary Results, 65 FR 54197, 54203 
(September 7, 2000).

SeAH

    SeAH reported, and we verified, that SeAH sold merchandise at one 
LOT in the home market during the POR. SeAH's one LOT involved one 
channel of distribution in the home market, where SeAH made sales to 
unaffiliated end-users or distributors. SeAH performed all sales-
related activities for these home market sales, including the 
following: Negotiating prices, meeting with customers, processing 
purchase orders, invoicing, arranging for freight and delivery, 
inventory, market research and extending credit. In addition, we found 
that sales at the home market LOT was at a more advanced stage of 
distribution (to end-users as well as distributors) compared to the CEP 
sales (sold only to distributors).
    SeAH reported only CEP sales, with one market channel of 
distribution, in the U.S. market. In order to determine the level of 
trade in the U.S. market, we reviewed the selling activities associated 
with this channel of distribution. SeAH reported, and we verified, that 
all of SeAH's CEP sales in the U.S. market were made through Pusan Pipe 
America Inc. (PPA), to unaffiliated U.S. distributors. SeAH performed 
the following sales-related activities regarding sales through PPA: 
Processing purchase orders, invoicing PPA, and arranging for 
international freight. Therefore, for these U.S. sales, we determined 
that SeAH performed fewer and different selling functions than SeAH 
performed in the home market.
    When the NV is established at a LOT that is at a more advanced 
stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, the 
Department's practice is to adjust normal value to account for this 
difference. SeAH requested a CEP offset due to differences in level of 
trade between its home market and U.S. sales. As discussed above, we 
found that the LOT in the home market did not match the LOT of the CEP 
transactions. However, we were unable to quantify the LOT adjustment in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Instead, we applied a 
CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons, in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Union

    In the present review, Union stated that it does not claim a level 
of trade adjustment. To determine whether an adjustment is necessary, 
in accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined 
information regarding the distribution systems in both the United 
States and home markets, including the selling functions, classes of 
customer, and selling expenses.
    In the home market, Union reported one level of trade. See Union's 
December 18, 2000 Section B Response at 25. Union stated that it sold 
subject merchandise through two channels of distribution: (1) End 
users; and (2) local distributors. According to Union, it performed the 
same sales-related activities in both channels of distribution, 
including inventory maintenance, after sales services and warranties, 
occasional post-sale warehousing, technical advice, freight and 
delivery arrangement, and credit terms. See Union's June 6, 2001 
Supplemental Response at 2. Therefore, based on Union's submissions, we 
preliminary determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    In the U.S. market, Union reported one level of trade to its U.S. 
affiliate, Dongkuk International (``DKA''). See Union's December 18, 
2000 Section C Response at 24. Union stated that DKA sold subject 
merchandise to U.S.

[[Page 47171]]

customers through two channels of distribution: (1) End users; and (2) 
local distributors. Union claims that no differences exist between the 
two channels. According to Union, it performed the same sales-related 
activities in both channels of distribution, including occasional post-
sale warehousing, technical advice, and freight and delivery 
arrangement. See Union's June 6, 2001 Supplemental Response at 2. 
Therefore, based on Union's submissions, we preliminarily determine 
that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    As discussed above, Union reports essentially identical sales 
related activities in the home market and U.S. As such, the Department 
preliminary determines that all sales in the home market and the U.S. 
market were made at the same level of trade. Consequently, all price 
comparisons are at the same level of trade and an adjustment pursuant 
to section 773(a)(7) is unwarranted.

Arm's Length Sales

    Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and Union reported that they made sales in 
the home market to affiliated parties. To test whether these sales were 
made at ``arm's length'' (i.e., at a price comparable to the price at 
which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product to an 
unaffiliated purchaser), we compared the starting prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. See 19 CFR 351.403(c) 
and section 773(a)(5) of the Act. Where prices to the affiliated party 
were, on average, 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unrelated 
party, we determined that sales made to the related party were at arm's 
length. Where no affiliated customer ratio could be calculated because 
identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were 
unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's length and, 
therefore, excluded them from our analysis. See e.g., 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, we made comparisons to the next 
most similar model.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the 
U.S. sales as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in effect on the date of sale of subject merchandise 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, 1996) 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.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

    As a result of these reviews, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
              Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   average
                                                               margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu....................................................          3.85
The POSCO Group...........................................          5.31
Union.....................................................          1.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu....................................................          0.38
The POSCO Group...........................................          1.08
SeAH......................................................          0
Union.....................................................          0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties 
to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these 
preliminary results within five days after the publication of this 
notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit 
written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs 
must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case 
briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit 
for filing case briefs. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding 
are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the 
issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal 
briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a 
public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal 
briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of 
rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results. The Department will publish 
the final results of this administrative review, including the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a 
hearing not later than 120 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results.
    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. Exporter/importer-specific 
assessment rates shall be calculated in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b). This is done by dividing the total dumping margins for the 
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for 
each importer. The U.S. Customs Service shall be directed, at the 
issuance of the final results of this review, 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.

Cash Deposit

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative reviews 
only for corrosion-resistant products for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
company will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 17.70 percent for 
certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products, the ``all 
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigations. See Antidumping 
Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon

[[Page 47172]]

Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993). These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.
    As a result of a Sunset Review, the Department has revoked the 
antidumping duty order for cold-rolled carbon steel products from 
Korea, effective January 1, 2001. See Revocation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Carbon Steel Products From 
Canada, Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 65 FR 78467 (Dec. 
15, 2000). Therefore, we have instructed the Customs Service to 
terminate suspension of liquidation for all entries of cold-rolled 
carbon steel products made on or after January 1, 2000, and antidumping 
cash deposit requirements for this merchandise are no longer necessary.
    Entries of subject merchandise made prior to January 1, 2000, will 
continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping 
duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending 
reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of 
subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation 
in response to appropriately filed requests for review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-22781 Filed 9-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P