[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5789-5791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2989]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-830]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan; Preliminary Results 
and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

DATES: February 7, 2002.

ACTION: Notice of the Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On June 19, 2001, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative 
review on stainless steel plate in coils from Taiwan. This review 
covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Yieh 
United Steel Corporation (``YUSCO''), a Taiwan producer and exporter of 
subject merchandise, and Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Ta 
Chen''), a Taiwan exporter of subject merchandise. The period of review 
(``POR'') is May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001.
    For the reasons provided in the ``Facts Available'' section of this 
notice, we have preliminarily determined that YUSCO's antidumping rate 
be based on total adverse facts available due to YUSCO's failure to 
participate in this proceeding. Therefore, for YUSCO, we applied the 
highest margin rate determined in prior segments of this proceeding. We 
are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Ta Chen based 
on record evidence supporting the conclusion that there were no entries 
into the United States of subject merchandise during the POR. (For a 
discussion of the preliminary rescission as to Ta Chen, see 
``Preliminary Rescission of Review in Part'' section of this notice.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doreen Chen or James C. Doyle, 
Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 202-482-0193 (Chen) or 
202-482-0159 (Doyle), fax 202-482-1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 
(``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 (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Background

    On May 21, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate in coils 
from Taiwan. See Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate 
in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Republic of Korea, South 
Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR 27756 (May 21, 1999). On August 1, 2001, the 
Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order for the period May 1, 2000 through 
April 30, 2001. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 39729 (August 1, 2001). Petitioners Allegheny Ludlum, AK 
Steel Corporation, Butler Armco Independent Union, J&L Specialty Steel, 
Inc., North American Stainless, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization (collectively 
``petitioners'') timely requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of sales by YUSCO, a Taiwan producer and exporter 
of subject merchandise, and Ta Chen, a Taiwan exporter of subject 
merchandise. On June 19, 2001, in accordance with section 751(a) of the 
Act, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review of sales by 
YUSCO and Ta Chen for the period May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001. 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part, 66 FR 32934 (July 19, 
2001). On July 10, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to YUSCO and Ta Chen. On August 2, 2001, Ta Chen stated 
that it did not have any U.S. sales, shipments or entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR, and requested that it not be required to 
answer the Department's questionnaire. YUSCO did not respond to the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this review, the product covered is certain 
stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel 
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent 
or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate 
products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm 
or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated 
and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be 
further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it 
maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. 
Excluded from the scope of this review are the following: (1) Plate not 
in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and 
pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars. 
In addition,

[[Page 5790]]

certain cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also excluded 
from the scope of these orders. The excluded cold-rolled stainless 
steel plate in coils is defined as that merchandise which meets the 
physical characteristics described above that has undergone a cold-
reduction process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 percent 
or more, and has been annealed and pickled after this cold reduction 
process. The merchandise subject to this review is currently 
classifiable in the HTS at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 
7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 
7219.12.00.55, 7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.0070, 7219.12.00.80, 
7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001.

Preliminary Rescission of Review in Part

    The Department preliminarily finds that Ta Chen had no entries 
during the POR. Thus, the Department is preliminarily rescinding this 
review.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular 
exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the 
period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales 
of the subject merchandise. The Department explained this practice in 
the preamble to the Department's regulations. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; 62 FR 27314, 27314 (May 19, 1997); 
(``Preamble''):
    Because of the respondent's inability to tie entries to sales, the 
Department normally must base its review on sales made during the 
period of review. Where a respondent can tie its entries to its sales, 
we potentially can trace each entry of subject merchandise to 
unaffiliated customers, and we conduct the review on that basis. 
However, the determination of whether to review sales of merchandise 
entered during the period of review hinges on such case-specific 
factors ....[including] whether a respondent has been able to link 
sales and entries previously for prior review periods and whether it 
appears likely that the respondent will continue to be able to link 
sales and entries in future reviews.
    This is the second administrative review of Ta Chen under this 
order. In the first administrative review, Ta Chen certified that of 
the POR resales, none of the merchandise entered the U.S. after the 
commencement of the POR - in other words, after the initial suspension 
of liquidation during the investigation. The Department has previously 
determined that ``(s)ales of merchandise that can be demonstrably 
linked with entries prior to the suspension of liquidation are not 
subject merchandise and therefore are not subject to review by the 
Department.'' See Certain Stainless Wire Rod From France: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 47874, 47875 
(September 11, 1996); Preamble at 271314. The Department conducted a 
Customs inquiry and determined in the first administrative review to 
its satisfaction on the record that there were no entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 
Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 
FR 18610, 18612 (April 10, 2001). The Department, therefore, rescinded 
the review.
    In this review, Ta Chen has certified that of POR resales from its 
U.S. affiliate Ta Chen International's (TCI) U.S. warehouse inventory, 
all merchandise entered before the POR. The Department therefore 
conducted a Customs inquiry and confirmed, to its satisfaction, that 
there were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Because 
there were no entries during this POR, nor the last POR, we are 
satisfied that Ta Chen has successfully linked its POR resales to 
entries that not only precede the POR, but also precede the suspension 
of liquidation.
    Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department is 
preliminarily rescinding this review because we find that there were no 
entries of subject merchandise during the POR.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information that cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use facts available in reaching the applicable 
determination. In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, 
section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse 
inference if the Department finds that a party has failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information. See The Statement of Administrative Action to the URAA, H. 
Doc. 103-316 (1994) at 870 (``SAA'').
    We preliminarily find, in accordance with section 776(a) of the 
Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for YUSCO. We 
confirmed that YUSCO received, but failed to respond to, the 
Department's questionnaire. Since YUSCO has failed to provide any 
information for our review on the record, the use of facts available is 
appropriate. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the 
Act, we preliminarily determine that the use of total facts available 
is appropriate.
    As noted above, in selecting facts otherwise available, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party, such as YUSCO in this 
case, failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with requests for information. Consistent with Department 
practice in cases where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of 
its ability, and in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as 
adverse facts available we have applied a margin based on the highest 
margin from this or any prior segment of the proceeding. See Certain 
Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results 
and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 
2402, 2407 (January 17, 2002). In this case, the highest margin from 
any segment of the proceeding is 8.02 percent, the petition rate in the 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts 
available. Secondary information is described in the SAA as 
``[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' SAA at 870. The SAA further provides that 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Thus, to 
corroborate secondary information, to the extent practicable, the 
Department

[[Page 5791]]

will examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. In 
the investigation, the Department determined that the petition margin 
was fully corroborated by examining the key elements of the U.S. price 
and normal value calculations on which the petition margin was based 
and then comparing the sources used in the petition to YUSCO's reported 
sales databases. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan, 64 FR 15493, 
15497 (March 31, 1999). This petition rate was applied to YUSCO in the 
investigation. For purposes of this administrative review, we have 
reviewed the petition, information and the administrative record, and 
found no reason to believe that the reliability of this information 
should be called into question. Further, the Department finds the 
administrative record of this review does not contain information which 
indicates that the application of the petition rate would be 
inappropriate in the instant review. Therefore, we find that the 
petition rate is sufficiently reliable and relevant to YUSCO for the 
present review.
    Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded 
the highest margin for use as adverse facts available because the 
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business 
expense, resulting in an unusually high margin). In this review, we are 
not aware of any circumstances that would render the use of the margin 
selected for YUSCO as inappropriate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period May 1, 2000 through April 30, 
2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YUSCO..................................................             8.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the 
date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. The 
Department will publish the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days after the 
publication of this notice.

Assessment Rate

    In the event these preliminary results are made final, we intend to 
assess antidumping duties on YUSCO's entries at the same rate as the 
dumping margin (i.e., 8.02 percent) since the margin is not a current 
calculated rate for the respondent, but a rate based upon total facts 
available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.

Cash Deposit

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion 
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly tot he Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit 
requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of the final results of these administrative 
reviews, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash 
deposit rate for YUSCO will be the rate established in the final 
results of this administrative review (no deposit will be required for 
a zero or de minimis margin, i.e., a margin lower than 0.5 percent); 
(2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered 
in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent segment; (3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the 
Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the ``all other'' 
rate established in the LTFV investigation, which was 7.39 percent. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Taiwan, 64 FR 15493 (March 31, 1999). These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice is published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    January 31, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-2989 Filed 2-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S