[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67223-67228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32000]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-810]


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

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 
Luxembourg 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. Because 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Margarita 
Panayi, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-0049, 
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 Luxembourg 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 largest producer/exporter of 
structural steel beams from Luxembourg as the mandatory respondent in 
this proceeding. For further discussion, see Memorandum to Susan H. 
Kuhbach, Senior Director Office 1, from The Team Re: Respondent 
Selection dated July 26, 2001. We subsequently issued the antidumping 
questionnaire to ProfilARBED, S.A. (``ProfilARBED'') on July 26, 2001.
    We received section A, B, and C questionnaire responses from 
ProfilARBED during August and September 2001. Based on our analysis of 
the responses, we determined that the Luxembourg home market was not 
viable and that sales to Germany, the largest third-country market, 
should be reported and used for calculating normal value (``NV''). 
Further, as the Department stated in the Initiation Notice, in the 
event German sales were to be used for NV, a sales-below-cost 
investigation would be initiated. Therefore, we also requested that 
ProfilARBED complete a section D questionnaire response (see October 
10, 2001, supplemental questionnaire and ``Home Market Viability'' 
section below).
    We issued and received responses to our supplemental questionnaires 
from October through December 2001.
    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 21, 2001, 
ProfilARBED 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) ProfilARBED accounts for a 
significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) 
no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting ProfilARBED's 
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

[[Page 67224]]

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 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 
ProfilARBED to the United States were made at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), we compared the constructed export price (``CEP'') to the 
NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average CEPs to 
weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by ProfilARBED in Germany 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 third country, where appropriate. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the third country 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 
ProfilARBED in the following order of importance: form; shape/size 
(section depth); strength/grade; and coating.
    ProfilARBED reported different forms in the home market for beams 
that had ``special finishing'' and it reported different strength/
grades in the home market for beams that had different notch-toughness 
requirements. ProfilARBED did not demonstrate that the hot-formed beams 
with ``special finishing'' should be distinguished from other hot-
formed beams. Neither did ProfilARBED demonstrate that the

[[Page 67225]]

grades that had different notch-toughness requirements should be 
distinguished from other beams that had the same grade (but not the 
notch-toughness requirements). Therefore, we did not differentiate the 
forms either on the basis of ``special finishing'' or on the basis of 
notch toughness.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
those sales where the merchandise was 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, or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer 
or exporter. In this case, all U.S. sales of merchandise produced by 
ProfilARBED are made in the United States by TradeARBED Inc. 
(``TANY''), which is a seller affiliated with ProfilARBED.
    We based CEP on the packed FOB or CIF prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments 
for price-billing errors. We made deductions for rebates, where 
applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these expenses included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. 
customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise 
processing fees), U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to 
warehouse) and U.S. storage expenses. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling 
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit costs) and 
indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs).
    We recalculated ProfilARBED's indirect selling expenses incurred by 
its U.S. affiliate to reflect the expense rate for the POI rather than 
the fiscal year, based on the information provided in ProfilARBED's 
December 11, 2001, submission. ProfilARBED reported most U.S. sales 
data on a theoretical-weight basis. We adjusted these data to state 
them on an actual-weight basis.
    For those U.S. sales which ProfilARBED 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. In addition, we recalculated ProfilARBED's U.S. 
interest rate on a 365-day basis, rather than the 360-day basis 
reported, and recalculated the imputed interest expense accordingly. 
(See Memorandum entitled ``U.S. Imputed Interest Rate Recalculation'' 
dated December 19, 2001.)
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by ProfilARBED and its U.S. affiliate on their 
sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign 
like product in Germany and the profit associated with those sales.

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 ProfilARBED'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.
    In this case, we determined that ProfilARBED's aggregate volume of 
home market sales of the foreign like product was insufficient to 
permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 
Specifically, the vast majority of ProfilARBED's sales were made to an 
affiliated reseller whose inventory includes products from affiliated 
and unaffiliated suppliers in other countries, the origin of which 
cannot be readily identified. Because most of the sales to the 
affiliated reseller are eventually re-sold to non-Luxembourg customers, 
and those made to Luxembourg customers cannot be specifically 
identified as Luxembourg-produced merchandise, ProfilARBED's sales to 
the affiliated reseller cannot be relied upon for purposes of 
determining home market viability. Therefore, we used sales to the 
largest third country (``Germany'') as the basis for comparison-market 
sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.404 (see the Department's October 10, 2001 supplemental 
questionnaire at pages 1-2).

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

    The Department's standard practice with respect to the use of third 
country 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 performed an arm's-length test on ProfilARBED's sales to 
affiliates.
    Sales to affiliated customers in the third country not made at 
arm's-length prices are excluded from our analysis because they are 
made 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. 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). Where the exclusion of such sales 
eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison product, we 
made a comparison to the next most similar model.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(d), where the respondent's sales 
to its affiliates constituted at least five percent of the total home-
market sales, and these sales failed the arm's-length test, we normally 
use the sales made by the affiliates to unaffiliated customers in our 
analysis. Accordingly, we requested ProfilARBED to report these 
resales.
    As discussed in several of its submissions, particularly its 
October 1, 2001, and November 28, 2001, submissions, ProfilARBED claims 
that its record-keeping system used in the ordinary course of business 
does not permit ProfilARBED to track its downstream resales from the 
mill to the ultimate unaffiliated purchaser. According to ProfilARBED, 
the information is not recorded electronically and to track the 
information manually would be extremely burdensome and time-consuming.
    For purpose of the preliminary determination, we have accepted 
ProfilARBED's claim that, even acting to the best of its ability, it 
could not provide the requested information for the large number of 
sales in question in

[[Page 67226]]

the time available. Therefore, for the preliminary determination, we 
have calculated NV based on the sales to unaffiliated customers and 
affiliated customers which passed the arm's length-test. We will 
examine ProfilARBED's claim during verification.
    The petitioners submitted additional comments regarding this topic 
on December 12 and 14, 2001. We received these comments too late for 
consideration in this preliminary determination. We will consider these 
comments for the final determination.

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 third country 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 33048, 33051).
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
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 third country packing costs 
(see ``Test of Third Country Sales Prices'' section below for treatment 
of third country selling expenses). We relied on the COP data submitted 
by ProfilARBED except in the following instances:
    A. We adjusted the values of electricity, capital leasing and 
natural gas purchased from affiliated parties to reflect the higher of 
transfer price, market price or the supplier's COP, in accordance with 
sections 773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act.
    B. We revised the G&A rate to include exchange gains and losses on 
accounts payable in the numerator of the calculation and to exclude 
packing expenses from the denominator of the calculation.
    C. We revised the financial expense rate to exclude short-term 
interest income offsets for dividends and trade receivables.
    D. We revised the denominator in the consolidated financial expense 
rate calculation to reflect cost of goods sold rather than raw 
materials.
    See Memorandum from Heidi Norris to Neal Halper, Director Office of 
Accounting, dated December 19, 2001, Re: Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Determination.
2. Test of Third Country Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the third country 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 third 
country 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 the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI are at prices less 
than the COP, we disregard those sales of that product, because 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 such 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 third country sales during the POI were at prices less than the COP 
and, in addition, the below-cost 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, if any, as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. 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 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 respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of the 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 LOT 
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, 243 F.3d 1301 (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 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

[[Page 67227]]

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 ProfilARBED regarding the marketing 
stages involved in making the reported third country and U.S. sales, 
including a description of the selling activities performed by 
ProfilARBED for each channel of distribution. ProfilARBED's LOT 
findings are summarized below.
    We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities 
associated with sales reported by ProfilARBED to distributors in the 
German market. ProfilARBED's sales to different distributors did not 
differ from each other with respect to selling activities (e.g. market 
research, advertising and promotion, technical services, sales calls 
and demonstrations). Based on our overall analysis, we found that all 
of ProfilARBED's sales to distributors constituted one LOT.
    In the U.S. market, ProfilARBED reported CEP sales only. Therefore, 
we treated all of ProfilARBED's U.S. sales as sales to an affiliated 
importer (i.e., at the constructed, or CEP, LOT) and found only one 
LOT. This CEP LOT differed considerably from the German market LOT in 
that ProfilARBED reported a lower intensity of selling activities 
associated with market research, advertising, technical service, sales 
calls and demonstrations, and warranties for the CEP LOT than the 
German market LOT. We found the CEP LOT to be different from the German 
market LOT and to be at a less advanced stage of distribution than the 
German market LOT. Consequently, we could not match CEP sales to sales 
at the same LOT in the German market, nor could we determine a LOT 
adjustment based on ProfilARBED's sales to Germany. Furthermore, we 
have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for 
determining a LOT adjustment.
    Because there is only one LOT in the German market, it is not 
possible to determine if there is a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and German market 
sales at the LOT of the export transaction. Accordingly, because the 
data available do not form an appropriate basis for making a LOT 
adjustment but the German market LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset is 
calculated as the lesser of: (1) The indirect selling expenses on the 
German market sales, or (2) the indirect selling expenses deducted from 
the starting price in calculating CEP.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on delivered 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 discounts and 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 warranties. ProfilARBED reported some German 
sales data on a theoretical-weight basis. We adjusted these data to 
state them on an actual-weight basis.
    Furthermore, 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 third country packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act. Finally, for comparisons to CEP sales, we made a CEP offset 
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). We 
calculated the CEP offset as the lesser of the indirect selling 
expenses on the comparison-market sales or the indirect selling 
expenses deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP.

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.

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 CEP, 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-
                                                               Average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ProfilARBED................................................         2.40
All Others.................................................         2.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 67228]]

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. 01-32000 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P