[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67202-67207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31986]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-838]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel Beams 
From Taiwan

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair 
value.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that structural steel beams from 
Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at 
less than fair value, as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination. Since we are postponing the final determination, we will 
make our final determination not later than 135 days after the date of 
publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 2001.

[[Page 67203]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4007 or (202) 482-4929, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act . In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce 
(``Department's'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 
351 (April 2001).

Background

    Since the initiation of this investigation (Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Structural Steel Beams From the 
People's Republic of China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia, South 
Africa, Spain, and Taiwan, 66 FR 33048 (June 20, 2001)) (Initiation 
Notice), the following events have occurred.
    On July 9, 2001, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of structural steel beams from Taiwan are 
materially injuring the United States industry (see ITC Investigation 
Nos. 731-TA-935-942 (Publication No. 3438)).
    On July 26, 2001, we selected the two largest producers/exporters 
of structural steel beams from Taiwan as the mandatory respondents in 
this proceeding. For further discussion, see Memorandum to Susan H. 
Kuhbach, Senior Director Office 1, from The Team Re: Respondent 
Selection. We subsequently issued the antidumping questionnaire to Kuei 
Yi Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Kuei Yi'') and Tung Ho Steel Enterprise 
Corp. (``Tung Ho'') on July 26, 2001.
    During the period August through November 2001, the Department 
received responses to sections A, B, C and D of the Department's 
original and supplemental questionnaires from Kuei Yi and Tung Ho.
    On September 25, 2001, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), the 
petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary 
determination. We granted this request on October 2, 2001, and 
postponed the preliminary determination until no later than November 
30, 2001. (See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from the People's 
Republic of China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia, South Africa, 
Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR 51639 (October 10, 2001)). On October 30, 2001, 
the petitioners made another timely request to postpone the preliminary 
determination for an additional 19 days. We granted this request on 
October 31, 2001, and postponed the preliminary determination until no 
later than December 19, 2001. (See Notice of Postponement of 
Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Structural Steel Beams 
from the People's Republic of China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, 
Russia, South Africa, Spain and Taiwan, 66 FR 56078 (November 6, 
2001)).

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on November 30 and 
December 7, 2001, Tung Ho and Kuei Yi, respectively, requested that, in 
the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until 
not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the 
preliminary determination in the Federal Register, and extend the 
provisional measures to not more than six months. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is 
affirmative, (2) Kuei Yi and Tung Ho account for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling 
reasons for denial exist, we are granting the respondents' request and 
are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days 
after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of these investigations covers doubly-symmetric shapes, 
whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, 
having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), 
whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or 
not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These 
structural steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange 
beams (``W'' shapes), bearing piles (``HP'' shapes), standard beams 
(``S'' or ``I'' shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the 
physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the 
scope of these investigations unless otherwise excluded. The following 
products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of 
these investigations: (1) Structural steel beams greater than 400 
pounds per linear foot, (2) structural steel beams that have a web or 
section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural 
steel beams that have additional weldments, connectors or attachments 
to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional 
weldment, connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace 
attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not 
removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional 
weldment, connector or attachment.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 
7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 
7228.70.3040, and 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we 
set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 
20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice (see 66 FR 
33048-33049). Interested parties submitted such comments by July 10, 
2001. Additional comments were subsequently submitted by interested 
parties.
    Pursuant to the Department's solicitation of scope comments in the 
Initiation Notice, interested parties in this and the concurrent 
structural steel beams investigations request that the following 
products be excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) Beams of 
grade A913/65 and (2) forklift mast profiles.
    With respect to the scope-exclusion requests for the A913/65 beam 
and forklift mast profiles, the interested parties rely upon 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(2) and reason that, in general, these products differ from 
the structural steel beams covered by the scope of the investigations 
in terms of physical characteristics, ultimate uses, purchaser 
expectations, channels of trade, manner

[[Page 67204]]

of advertising and display and/or price. They also argue that these 
products are not produced by the petitioners.
    In considering whether these products should be included within the 
scope of the investigations, we analyzed the arguments submitted by all 
of the interested parties in the context of the criteria enumerated in 
the court decision Diversified Products Corp. v. United States, 572 F. 
Supp. 883, 889 (CIT 1983) (``Diversified''). For these analyses, we 
relied upon the petition, the submissions by all interested parties, 
the International Trade Commission's (``ITC'') preliminary 
determination, and other information.
    After considering the respondent's comments and the petitioners' 
objections to the exclusion requests regarding the A913/65 beam, we 
find that the description of this grade of structural steel beam is 
dispositive such that further consideration of the criteria provided in 
their submissions is unnecessary. Furthermore, the description of the 
merchandise contained in the relevant submissions pertaining to this 
grade of beam does not preclude this product from being within the 
scope of the investigations. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine 
that the A913/65 beam does not constitute a separate class or kind of 
merchandise and, therefore, falls within the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    With respect to forklift mast profiles, having considered the 
comments we received from the interested parties and the criteria 
enumerated in Diversified, we find that the profiles in question, being 
doubly-symmetric and having an I-shape, fall within the scope of the 
investigations. These profiles also meet the other criteria included in 
the scope language contained in the petition. While the description by 
the interested party requesting the exclusion indicates some 
differences, such as in price, between forklift mast profiles and 
structural steel beams, these differences are not sufficient to 
recognize forklift mast profiles as a separate class or kind of 
merchandise. However, given these differences between forklift mast 
profiles and structural steel beams, we preliminarily determine that 
forklift mast profiles should be separately identified for model-
matching purposes.
    We also received a scope-exclusion request by an interested party 
for fabricated steel beams. This request was subsequently withdrawn 
pursuant to an agreement with the petitioners to clarify the scope 
language by adding that ``* * * beams that have additional weldments, 
connectors or attachments to I-sections, H-sections, or pilings are 
outside the scope definition.'' However, ``* * * if the only additional 
weldment, connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace 
attached to maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not 
removed from the scope definition by reason of such additional 
weldment, connector or attachment.'' Accordingly, we modified the scope 
definition to account for this clarification. See the ``Scope'' section 
above.
    We have addressed these scope-exclusion requests in detail in a 
Memorandum to Louis Apple and Laurie Parkhill, Directors, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group I, Offices 2 and 3, respectively, from The Structural 
Steel Beams Teams Re: Scope Exclusion Requests, dated December 19, 
2001.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2000, through 
March 31, 2001.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of structural steel beams from Taiwan to 
the United States were made at less than fair value (``LTFV''), we 
compared the export price (``EP'') to the normal value (``NV''), as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we compared POI weighted-average EPs to weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by the respondents in the home market during 
the POI that fit the description in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared 
U.S. sales to sales made in the home market, where appropriate. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in 
the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched 
foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by 
the respondents in the following order of importance: form; shape/size 
(section depth); strength/grade; and coating. We also excluded from our 
comparisons home market sales of structural steel beams manufactured by 
other producers in accordance with 771(16) of the Act.
    With respect to home market sales of non-prime merchandise made by 
Tung Ho during the POI, in accordance with our past practice, we 
excluded these sales from our preliminary analysis based on the limited 
quantity of such sales in the home market and the fact that no such 
sales were made to the United States during the POI. (See, e.g., Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 
(July 9, 1993).)

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated EP for 
those sales where the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or 
producer outside the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, based on the facts of record. In this 
case, all sales to the U.S. were EP sales.
    For both respondents, we based EP on the packed FOB price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 
these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight expenses 
(freight from the plant to the port of exportation) and foreign 
brokerage and handling.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared Kuei Yi's and Tung Ho's volume of home market 
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act. Because both respondents' aggregate volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of their 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we 
determined that the home market was viable for Kuei Yi and Tung Ho.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    The Department's standard practice with respect to the use of home 
market sales to affiliated parties for NV is to determine whether such 
sales are at arm's-length prices. Therefore, in accordance with that 
practice, we

[[Page 67205]]

performed an arm's-length test on Kuei Yi's and Tung Ho's sales to 
affiliates as follows.
    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-
length prices (if any) were excluded from our analysis because we 
considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 
351.102. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, 
we compared, on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Where, for the tested 
models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were on 
average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, 
we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's 
length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio could 
be constructed for an affiliated customer because identical merchandise 
was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine 
that these sales were made at arm's-length prices and, therefore, 
excluded them from our LTFV 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).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(d), where Kuei Yi's sales to its 
affiliates failed the arm's-length test, we used the sales made by the 
affiliates to unaffiliated customers in our analysis. For further 
discussion, see the Preliminary Determination Calculation Memorandum 
dated December 19, 2001 (Calculation Memo).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of an allegation contained in the petition, 
we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales of structural steel beams in the home market were made at prices 
below their cost of production (``COP''). Accordingly, pursuant to 
section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a country-wide sales-below-cost 
investigation to determine whether sales were made at prices below 
their respective COP (see Initiation Notice, 66 FR at 33048, 33051).
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
for each respondent based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for general 
and administrative expenses (``G&A''), interest expenses, and home 
market packing costs (see ``Test of Home Market Sales Prices'' section 
below for treatment of home market selling expenses). We relied on the 
COP data submitted by Kuei Yi and Tung Ho, except as noted below.
    We revised Kuei Yi's interest expense ratio to include interest 
expenses associated with loans covering asset losses incurred during 
the POI. See Calculation Memo for further details of these 
calculations.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any 
applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and 
indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home 
market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in 
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such 
sales were made (1) within an extended period of time, in substantial 
quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI are at prices less 
than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, 
because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI are at prices less 
than the COP, we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales 
represent ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we 
also determine whether the below-cost sales were made at prices which 
would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Kuei Yi's and Tung Ho's home market sales were at prices less than 
the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery 
of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded 
these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining 
NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

E. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or constructed export price 
(``CEP''). Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at 
different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a 
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is 
a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also 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 order to determine whether the comparison sales were at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the ``chain of 
distribution''),\1\ including selling functions \2\, class of customer 
(``customer category''), and the level of selling expenses for each 
type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the 
final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two 
may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of each respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to 
occur.
    \2\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of this preliminary determination, 
we have organized the common structural steel beams selling 
functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing 
support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and 
quality assurance/warranty services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either home market or third country prices \3\), we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only 
the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, Court Nos. 00-1058,-1060 (Fed. Cir. 
March 7, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 
Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the 
comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market, where available data make it

[[Page 67206]]

practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if a NV LOT is more remote from the 
factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether 
the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affected price comparability 
(i.e. no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 
19, 1997).
    We obtained information from Kuei Yi and Tung Ho regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by 
Kuei Yi and Tung Ho for each channel of distribution. Company-specific 
LOT findings are summarized below.
Kuei Yi
    Kuei Yi reported sales in the home market through two channels of 
distribution: (1) Fabricators and end-users and (2) stockists. We 
examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities 
associated with home market sales through these channels of 
distribution, and determined that there was little difference in the 
relevant selling functions provided by Kuei Yi. Specifically, Kuei Yi 
does not provide inventory maintenance, advertising, or sales support 
for any of its home market customers. Kuei Yi does incur a high degree 
of sales activity related to transportation and warranty. Kuei Yi did 
not indicate that there are any differences with respect to freight and 
delivery between these channels of distribution or customer categories. 
Similarly, the sales warranty support provided by Kuei Yi does not vary 
by channel of distribution or customer category. Based on our overall 
analysis, we found that the channels of distribution did not differ 
significantly from each other with respect to selling activities and, 
therefore, constituted one LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Kuei Yi made only EP sales through one channel 
of distribution: sales to traders shipped directly to the United 
States. Kuei Yi incurs freight costs in delivering the product to the 
port as well as brokerage and handling charges. Kuei Yi also provides 
warranty services in the U.S. market. Similar to the home market LOT, 
Kuei Yi does not provide inventory maintenance, advertising, or sales 
support in selling to its U.S. customers. Accordingly, there is only 
one LOT for U.S. sales.
    We compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and concluded that 
the selling functions performed for home market customers in this home 
market LOT are sufficiently similar to those performed for U.S. 
customers because the same services are offered in both markets. 
Accordingly, we consider the EP and home market LOTs to be the same. 
Consequently, we are comparing EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the 
home market.
Tung Ho
    Tung Ho reported sales in the home market through two channels of 
distribution: (1) Unaffiliated distributors and (2) affiliated and 
unaffiliated end-users. Tung Ho sold the subject merchandise both out 
of inventory and on a made-to-order basis to both distributors and end-
users. We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities 
associated with home market sales through these channels of 
distribution, and determined that there was little difference in the 
relevant selling functions provided by Tung Ho. Specifically, Tung Ho 
provided rebates and warranties to distributors, but not to end-users. 
Tung Ho did not indicate that there are any differences with respect to 
freight and delivery or inventory maintenance services between these 
channels of distribution or customer categories. As we do not consider 
the existence of rebates and warranties on sales to distributors 
sufficient to warrant finding a separate channel of distribution for 
sales to distributors, we find that the home market channels of 
distribution do not differ significantly from each other with respect 
to selling activities and, therefore, constitute one LOT.
    In the U.S. market, Tung Ho made only EP sales through one channel 
of distribution: sales to distributors shipped directly to the United 
States. Tung Ho incurs freight costs in delivering the product to the 
port as well as brokerage and handling charges. Tung Ho provided no 
rebates or warranty services in the U.S. market, nor did it provide 
inventory maintenance, advertising, or sales support in selling to its 
U.S. customers. Accordingly, there is only one LOT for U.S. sales.
    We compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and concluded that 
the selling functions performed for home market customers are 
sufficiently similar to those performed for U.S. customers to warrant 
considering them the same LOT. Consequently, we are comparing EP sales 
to sales at the same LOT in the home market.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

Kuei Yi
    We calculated NV based on delivered or ex-works prices to 
unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we 
determined to be at arm's-length. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, from the starting price for rebates. We also made 
deductions for movement expenses, including inland freight, under 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments 
under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for 
differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses and 
warranties.
Tung Ho
    We calculated NV based on delivered or ex-factory prices to 
unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we 
determined to be at arm's-length. We added to the starting price 
interest revenue, where appropriate. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, from the starting price for billing adjustments and 
rebates. We also made deductions for inland freight, under section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments under 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences 
in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses, bank charges, and 
warranties. For those sales for which Tung Ho did not report a date of 
payment, we have used the signature date of the preliminary 
determination (i.e., December 19, 2001) in the calculation of imputed 
credit expenses.
    Furthermore, for both respondents we made adjustments for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon in making our final determination.

[[Page 67207]]

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. 
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Exporter/manufacturer                   average margin
                                                            percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuei Yi Industrial Co., Ltd.............................           18.01
Tung Ho Steel Enterprise Corporation....................            4.70
All Others..............................................           13.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the final 
verification report issued in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be 
filed five days from the deadline date for case briefs. A list of 
authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of 
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. 
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including 
footnotes. Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will 
hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that 
such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, 
date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. 
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: December 19, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-31986 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P