[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49618-49622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-835]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2001.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Final Determination

    We determine that certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the 
Tariff Act. The estimated margin of sales are shown in the `` 
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    The Department published the preliminary determination of sales at 
less-than-fair-value on May 3, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Taiwan, 66 FR 22204 (May 3, 2001) 
(Preliminary Determination). In the Preliminary Determination, the 
Department collapsed China Steel and Yieh Loong (hereafter referred to 
as China Steel/Yieh Loong) pursuant to Sec. 351.401(f) of the 
Department's regulations for purposes of calculating a weighted-average 
margin. For details of the Department's analysis, see the Memorandum to 
Joseph Spetrini from Patricia Tran, April 19, 2001, a copy of which is 
in room B-099 at the main Department of Commerce building. We gave 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary 
Determination. Since the April 23, 2001 signing of the Preliminary 
Determination the following events have occurred:
    On April 23, 2001, China Steel/Yieh Loong submitted responses to 
the Department's April 17 and 18, 2001 supplemental questionnaires. 
After reviewing these responses, the Department concluded that they 
failed to adequately remedy or explain deficiencies in earlier 
responses. Therefore, the Department cancelled the sales and cost 
verifications of China Steel/Yieh Loong. See Letter to Peter Koenig 
from Robert James, Program Manager, Enforcement Group III, May 10, 
2001.
    On May 30 and 31, 2001, China Steel/Yieh Loong submitted additional 
responses to the Department's April 17 and 18, 2001 supplemental 
questionnaires. Pursuant to section 782(f) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 
351.302(d)(i) the Department returned all documents due to the untimely 
nature of these submissions. See Letter to Peter Koenig from Robert 
James, Program Manager, Enforcement Group III, June 5, 2001.
    On June 22, 2001, respondents and petitioners filed their case 
briefs in this matter; both parties filed rebuttal briefs on June 27, 
2001. The Department published a postponement of the final 
determination for antidumping duty investigation on July 17, 2001. See 
Notice of Postponement of Final Determination for Antidumping Duty 
Investigation: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Taiwan, 66 FR 37213 (July 17, 2001).
    Although the deadline for this determination was originally 
September 17, 2001, in light of the events of September 11, 2001 and 
the subsequent closure of the Federal Government for reasons of 
security, the timeframe for

[[Page 49619]]

issuing this determination has been extended by four days.

Period of Investigation

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

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are 
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, 
of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated 
with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with 
plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in 
successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in 
straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width 
measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., 
flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 
width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness 
of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) 
of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of 
these investigations.
    Specifically included within the scope of these investigations are 
vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as 
interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, 
and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized 
as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as 
titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, 
added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are 
recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as 
chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for 
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such 
as silicon and aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of these investigations, 
regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by 
weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon 
content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 
1.80 percent of manganese, or, 2.25 percent of silicon, or, 1.00 
percent of copper, or, 0.50 percent of aluminum, or, 1.25 percent of 
chromium, or, 0.30 percent of cobalt, or, 0.40 percent of lead, or, 
1.25 percent of nickel, or, 0.30 percent of tungsten, or, 0.10 percent 
of molybdenum, or, 0.10 percent of niobium, or, 0.15 percent of 
vanadium, or, 0.15 percent of zirconium.
    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of these investigations unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are 
outside or specifically excluded from the scope of these 
investigations:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A543, 
A387, A514, A517, A506).
     Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & 
Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
     Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTSUS.
    The merchandise subject to these investigations is classified in 
the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products covered by these investigations, including: vacuum degassed 
fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor 
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping duty investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from Joseph A. Spetrini, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 19, 
2001, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues 
which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which 
are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an 
appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised 
in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public 
memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the Department of Commerce 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly on the internet at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Use of Facts Available

    On January 4, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to China Steel/Yieh Loong. On February 2, 2001, the 
Department received from China Steel and Yieh Loong the response to 
section A of the questionnaire. On February 15, 2001 and February 21, 
2001, the petitioners filed comments on the section A responses of 
China Steel/Yieh Loong. On February 27, 2001, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire for China Steel/Yieh Loong's Section A 
response. The companies submitted their responses on March 20, 2001. 
China Steel made additional submissions in follow-up to its March 20, 
2001 response on March 21 and March 26, 2001.
    China Steel/Yieh Loong filed their sections B, C, and D responses 
on February 26, 2001. On March 6, 2001,

[[Page 49620]]

petitioners submitted comments on the sections B, C, and D responses of 
China Steel/Yieh Loong. The Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to China Steel/Yieh Loong regarding its sections B and C 
responses on March 15, 2001. On April 3, 2001, China Steel/Yieh Loong 
filed its supplemental sections B and C responses. However, China 
Steel's submission failed to correct the deficiencies the Department 
detailed in its supplemental questionnaire, i.e., missing product 
characteristics and downstream sales, and Yieh Loong's submission 
failed to provide narratives and supporting documentation for all 
expenses and adjustments for its downstream sales. On March 16, 2001, 
petitioners submitted additional comments regarding China Steel's 
section D response. On March 21, 2001, petitioners filed additional 
comments regarding Yieh Loong's Section D response. The Department 
issued supplemental questionnaires concerning China Steel's and Yieh 
Loong's section D response on March 21, 2001. The Department received 
the responses to these supplemental questionnaires on April 9, 2001.
    On April 17 and April 18, 2001, the Department issued its third 
questionnaire to China Steel/Yieh Loong regarding its sections B, C and 
D responses. In these questionnaires the Department, again, requested 
China Steel to provide missing product characteristics and downstream 
sales information. In addition, this was the Department's third request 
to Yieh Loong for its downstream sales' narrative and supporting 
documentation of all expenses and adjustments. On April 23, 2001, China 
Steel/Yieh Loong submitted responses to the Department's April 17 and 
18, 2001 supplemental questionnaire. After reviewing these responses, 
the Department concluded that China Steel/Yieh Loong failed to 
adequately remedy or explain deficiencies in earlier responses, and 
failed to provide vital data previously required by the Department. 
Therefore, the Department cancelled the sales and cost verifications of 
China Steel/Yieh Loong. See Letter to Peter Koenig from Robert James, 
Program Manager, Enforcement Group III, May 10, 2001.
    On May 30 and 31, 2001, China Steel/Yieh Loong submitted additional 
responses to the Department's April 17 and 18, 2001 supplemental 
questionnaires. Pursuant to section 782(f) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 
351.302(d)(i) the Department returned all documents due to the untimely 
nature of these submissions. See Letter to Peter Koenig from Robert 
James, Program Manager Enforcement Group III, June 5, 2001.
    As mentioned above, we determined that these two companies are 
affiliated under section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act. Further, China 
Steel and Yieh Loong were collapsed and treated as a single producer 
under section 351.401(f) of the Department's regulations for purposes 
of calculating a weighted-average margin. See Memorandum from Patricia 
Tran to Joseph Spetrini, April 19, 2001.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that, if an interested 
party (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) 
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Tariff Act, use the facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Tariff Act provides that if an interested 
party, ``promptly after receiving a request from (the Department) for 
information, notifies (the Department) that such party is unable to 
submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, 
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in 
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department 
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on 
that party.
    Also, section 782(d) of the Tariff Act provides that, if the 
Department determines that a response to a request for information does 
not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person 
submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to 
the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy 
or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information 
that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not 
submitted 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.
    Additionally, section 782(e) of the Tariff Act states that the 
Department shall not decline to consider information deemed 
``deficient'' under section 782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted 
by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) 
the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Finally, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that the 
Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party 
that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with the Department's requests for information. See also 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. 
Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
    For the reasons discussed below, the Department determines that, in 
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act, the 
use of adverse facts available is appropriate for the final 
determination for China Steel/Yieh Loong.
    We determine pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) that 
China Steel has withheld information requested by the Department, 
failed to supply such information by the applicable deadlines and has 
significantly impeded this proceeding. In each of its three submissions 
China Steel failed to provide complete sales and cost questionnaire 
responses. In its initial and supplemental responses, China Steel 
failed to provide the information requested in the Department's January 
4, 2001 antidumping questionnaire, the March 15, 2001 sections B and C 
supplemental questionnaire, and the March 21, 2001 supplemental section 
D questionnaires. Additionally, Yieh Loong failed to provide a 
narrative and supporting documentation for its downstream sales. In the 
next section, we discuss the particular deficiencies identified in 
China Steel/Yieh Loong's three responses. We note that China Steel/Yieh 
Loong never requested any modification of the reporting requirements 
under section 782(c). Indeed, it repeatedly told the Department that 
the missing information would be forthcoming. The Department informed 
China Steel/Yieh Loong that its submission was deficient, and provided 
it with specific deficiency questions which it failed to answer. 
Finally, pursuant to section 782(e) the Department finds that the sales 
information China Steel/Yieh Loong did provide, absent the missing 
sales information, was too incomplete to form a reliable basis for 
making a determination and that China Steel/Yieh Loong has not acted to 
the best of its ability in providing information.
    Finally, in light of our finding that China Steel/Yieh Loong has 
not cooperated by acting to the best of its

[[Page 49621]]

ability, as evidenced by its failure to provide the information 
repeatedly requested nor to provide any proof that it was unable to 
provide such information, the Department has drawn an adverse inference 
in selecting the facts available under section 776(b).

Deficiencies in the Sales Response

    For the reasons discussed below, we find that the use of facts 
available is warranted under section 776(a)(2) in light of the 
significant missing information from China Steel/Yieh Loong's sales 
responses. Our analysis of this sales response found deficiencies that 
preclude us from ensuring that products sold in the U.S. market are 
accurately matched to identical or most similar products sold in the 
home market. Without properly matching products sold in the U.S. and 
home markets, we cannot accurately identify similar matches and, as 
appropriate, calculate an accurate difference in merchandise (DIFMER) 
adjustment to account for the differences in the products being 
matched. Moreover, without accurate product characteristics, we are 
unable to assign costs with any degree of confidence and are, 
therefore, unable to determine if home market sales were made at prices 
below the cost of production. Ultimately, lacking the information in 
question, the Department is unable to calculate an accurate dumping 
margin which meets the requirements of the statute.
    Since these functions are essential elements to a dumping analysis, 
we find that China Steel's responses cannot serve as a reliable basis 
for this preliminary determination. Specifically, China Steel/Yieh 
Loong failed to provide: (1) Complete and adequate affiliated parties' 
resale information; and (2) complete and accurate product 
characteristics.

1. Affiliated Parties' Resale

    On January 4, 2001, the Department requested China Steel to provide 
affiliated parties' resale information if sales to affiliates 
constituted more than five percent of total home market sales. On 
January 19, 2001, China Steel requested that it be excused from 
reporting home market resales by affiliates. China Steel stated that 
sales to its affiliates, China Steel Global Trading Corporation (China 
Steel Global) and China Steel Chemical Corporation (China Steel 
Chemical), constituted less than five percent of total home market 
sales. On January 29, 2001, the Department replied, stating that we 
could not make a determination based on the information provided. The 
Department requested respondent to document the total quantity of 
subject merchandise sold to all affiliated parties (regardless of 
whether subject merchandise was later further processed by affiliates). 
China Steel failed to provide such information.
    The Department concluded from China Steel's February 26, 2001 home 
market sales data that it coded sales to Yieh Loong, Yieh Phui, and 
Yieh Hsing as sales to unaffiliated parties. China Steel owns a 
substantial percentage of Yieh Loong, and Yieh Loong acknowledged that 
Yieh Phui, Yieh Hsing, and Persistence Hi-Tech are affiliated entities. 
See Affiliated Resellers Memorandum, April 19, 2001. The Department 
determined that China Steel's sales to Yieh Loong, Yieh Phui, and Yieh 
Hsing are to affiliated parties and constituted more than five percent 
of China Steel's February 26, 2001 home market sales observations. On 
March 15, 2001, the Department issued its supplemental sections B and C 
questionnaire, reiterating that China Steel must report all affiliated 
parties' resale information (Yieh Loong, China Steel Chemical, China 
Steel Global, Yieh Phui, and Yieh Hsing) to the first unaffiliated 
party. We note that our subsequent finding that China Steel and Yieh 
Loong should be treated as the same entity meant that we no longer 
needed the sales from China Steel to Yieh Loong; however, that finding 
did not diminish the need for affiliated parties' resale information 
for China Steel Chemical, China Steel Global, Yieh Phui, Yieh Hsing, 
and Persistence Hi-Tech.
    China Steel/Yieh Loong's April 23, 2001 response provided 
incomplete, deficient, and inconsistent affiliated-party resales 
information. Moreover, Yieh Loong's April 23, 2001 submission failed to 
contain narratives and supporting documentation for all expenses and 
adjustments of its downstream sales. China Steel only reported 
downstream sales by Yieh Loong, Yieh Phui, and Yieh Hsing, made after 
February 21, 2000. As the questionnaire clearly indicates, the period 
of investigation is October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000. 
Therefore a significant number of downstream sales have not been 
provided. China Steel's April 3, 2001 narrative states that it does not 
control Yieh Phui and Yieh Hsing; however, it has provided no evidence 
of the steps it took to obtain this information.

2. Physical Product Characteristics

    The Department found other deficiencies that made China Steel's 
submission unusable for purposes of calculating a dumping margin. The 
principal deficiency was the failure to report certain product 
characteristics on particular types of sales, e.g., quality, carbon 
content, yield strength, thickness, and width. These deficiencies 
affected a significant share of China Steel's home market sales of 
prime merchandise that could be matched to U.S. sales, including both 
sales to its unaffiliated customers and to its affiliates Yieh Phui, 
Yieh Hsing, and China Steel Global. The absence of the noted five 
characteristics for numerous sales limits the ability to compare 
properly sales made to the U.S. market to sales made in the home market 
due to the uniqueness of each characteristic. Quality, carbon content, 
and yield strength will determine the performance characteristics of a 
given steel product and are critical physical characteristics, which 
will significantly affect the cost of production and pricing of various 
steel products. Width and thickness are physical characteristics that 
also affect pricing of the product, due in part to costs associated 
with producing material with different dimensional characteristics, and 
these characteristics also affect the cost of production, since thinner 
or narrower products require additional processing. This information is 
required to calculate a difference-in-merchandise adjustment when 
price-to-price comparisons involve similar, but not identical, models. 
China Steel's failure to provide complete physical characteristics for 
its home market merchandise precluded the Department from performing 
its normal cost and price analysis.
    China Steel has contended that all sales which are missing such 
characteristics are so-called ``leeway'' sales. When China Steel 
manufactures products to a customer's specifications, it often produces 
somewhat more than it needs to meet the customer's needs. This 
remainder is put into inventory for subsequent sale to other customers. 
Thus, China Steel's characterizations to the contrary notwithstanding, 
the merchandise in question is not ``secondary'' quality merchandise 
which should not be matched to prime quality merchandise. The 
merchandise in question is prime quality; it has simply not been 
purchased by the customer to whose specifications it was originally 
produced. Moreover, although China Steel has claimed that it does not 
have the characteristics in question, China Steel has not explained how 
it could sell steel without knowing such fundamental characteristics as 
the width and thickness of the steel. In the Department's experience, 
hot-rolled

[[Page 49622]]

steel customers demand to know all of the physical characteristics in 
the Department's hierarchy in order to be sure that the product they 
are purchasing will meet the demands of their intended application. 
Even for an application as simple as covering a hole in the street, a 
customer must know the thickness and width in order to be sure that the 
hole will be covered and the steel will not bend.
    China Steel has not reported the product characteristics of 
quality, carbon, yield strength, thickness, and width on a significant 
percentage of its home market sales; thus, none of these sales data can 
be used for cost tests, model match, or price comparisons. Yieh Loong, 
Yieh Phui, and Yieh Hsing resold merchandise purchased from China Steel 
without any further processing; therefore, the same deficiency 
affecting China Steel's sales to its affiliates carries through to the 
resales by affiliates. Because China Steel's sales to affiliates 
constituted approximately one-fifth of its total home market sales 
observations, its affiliated parties' resale product characteristics 
are severely incomplete. Sales of merchandise with the missing model 
characteristics constitute more than half of Yieh Loong's, Yieh Phui's, 
and Yieh Hsing's reported resales. Furthermore, the unaffiliated party 
sales are similarly affected. Sales of prime merchandise with the 
missing product characteristics totaled nearly one-fifth of total home 
market sales observations by China Steel to unaffiliated companies, and 
more than eight percent of the reported home market sales of China 
Steel/Yieh Loong.

Adverse Inferences

    Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we find that China 
Steel failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it 
repeatedly ignored the Department's instructions to submit accurate 
downstream sales data as demonstrated by its selective submission of 
China Steel's affiliates' data, and never provided alternatives or 
reasonable explanations for why it could not report all downstream 
sales. Further, without this data, the information regarding home 
market sales is unusable. In addition, a significant quantity of China 
Steel's home market sales are made through affiliates. Without this 
information the Department's ability to calculate an accurate dumping 
margin would be severely hindered.
    Moreover, we also find that China Steel failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability because it repeatedly ignored the Department's 
instructions to submit complete physical characteristics for its sales. 
Without this information, the Department cannot identify home market 
sales of identical or most similar products, thus rendering its entire 
home market database unusable. Nor can we properly perform a cost test 
for home market sales.
    Because the deficiencies in China Steel/Yieh Loong's responses 
affect a significant portion of its responses, its data is unusable for 
purposes of calculating a margin. Accordingly, for the purpose of this 
final determination, we have assigned as adverse facts available the 
highest margin from the antidumping petition as recalculated by the 
Department. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Argentina, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the People's 
Republic of China, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, 65 
FR 77568 (December 12, 2000).

All Others Rate

    Pursuant to section 735(5)(B) of the Tariff Act, the estimated 
``all-others'' rate is equal to the average of the dumping margins 
calculated in the antidumping duty petition as recalculated by the 
Department. See Preliminary Determination at 22208.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend the liquidation of 
all entries of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Taiwan that 
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
May 3, 2001, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination 
in the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall continue to require 
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted average 
dumping margin, as indicated in the chart below. These cash deposit 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

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

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Tariff Act, we have 
notified the International Trade Commission (the Commission) of the 
determination. As the final determination is affirmative, the 
Commission will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. 
If the Commission determines that material injury or threat of material 
injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all 
securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the Commission 
determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an 
antidumping duty order directing the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective 
date of the suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to section 
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: September 21, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Comments and Responses

    1. Collapsing of China Steel and Yieh Loong
    2. Affiliation
    3. Time to Respond to Request for Information
    4. Application of Facts Available & Adverse Facts Available

[FR Doc. 01-24409 Filed 9-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P