[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17379-17384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8703]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-274-804]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Tisha Loeper-Viti at 
(202) 482-4162 or (202) 482-7425, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement 
Group II Office 5, Import Administration, Room 1870, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that carbon and certain alloy steel wire 
rod (steel wire rod) from Trinidad and Tobago is being sold, or is 
likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), 
as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales 
at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this 
notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on September 24, 2001.\1\ See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Carbon and Certain Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, 
Moldova, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago Ukraine and Venezuela, 66 FR 
50164 (October 2, 2001) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of 
this investigation, the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are Co-Steel Raritan, 
Inc., GS Industries, Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., 
and North Star Steel Texas, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 12, 2001, the United States International Trade 
Commission (the ITC) preliminarily determined that the domestic 
industry producing steel wire rod is materially injured by reason of 
imports from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine of carbon and certain alloy steel wire 
rod.\2\ See Determinations and Views of the Commission, USITC 
Publication No. 3456, October 2001.
    The Department issued a letter on October 16, 2001, to interested 
parties in all of the concurrent steel wire rod antidumping 
investigations, providing an opportunity to comment on the Department's 
proposed model match characteristics and hierarchy. The petitioners 
submitted comments on October 24, 2001. The Department also received 
comments on model matching from respondents Hysla S.A. de C.V. 
(Mexico), Ivaco, Inc., Ispat Sidbec Inc. (Canada). These comments were 
taken into consideration by the Department in developing the model 
matching characteristics and hierarchy for all of the steel wire rod 
antidumping investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ With respect to imports from Egypt, South Africa, and 
Venezuela, the ITC determined that imports from these countries 
during the period of investigation (POI) were negligible and, 
therefore, these investigations were terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 5, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Caribbean Ispat Limited (CIL).\3\ We issued 
supplemental questionnaires on January 9 and 16, and February 8, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. 
Section D requests information on the cost of production (COP) of 
the foreign like product and the constructed value (CV) of the 
merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on 
further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 17, 2002, the petitioners requested a 30-day 
postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation. On 
January 28, 2002, the Department published a Federal Register notice 
postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations until March 
13, 2002. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty 
Determinations: Carbon and Certain Alloy Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, 
Indonesia, Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 
67 FR 3877 (January 28, 2002). On March 4, 2002, the petitioners 
requested an additional 20-day postponement of the preliminary 
determination in this investigation. On March 15, 2002, the Department 
published a Federal Register notice postponing the deadline for the 
preliminary determinations until April 2, 2002. See Notice of 
Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 11674 (March 
15, 2002).
    On December 21, 2001, the petitioners alleged that there that there 
was a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of steel wire rod from

[[Page 17380]]

Trinidad and Tobago.\4\ On February 4, 2002, the Department 
preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist with respect 
to imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. 
See Memorandum to Faryar Shirzad Re: Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago--
Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances 
(February 4, 2002); see also Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 
Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224 
(February 11, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On December 5, 2001, the petitioners further alleged that 
there was a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of wire rod from Brazil, 
Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Turkey, and Ukraine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the 
Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting 
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension 
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act 
from a four-month period until not more than six months. We received a 
request to postpone the final determination from CIL on March 22, 2002. 
In its request, the respondent consented to the extension of 
provisional measures to no longer than six months. Because this 
preliminary determination is affirmative, the request for postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, and there is no compelling reason 
to deny the respondent's request, we have extended the deadline for 
issuance of the final determination until the 135th day after the date 
of publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal 
Register and have extended provisional measures to no longer than six 
months.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. This period 
corresponds to the four most recent completed fiscal quarters prior to 
the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., August 2001).

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain hot-rolled 
products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately 
round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid 
cross-sectional diameter.
    Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted 
physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool 
steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete 
reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel 
products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the 
following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more 
of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of 
phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 
percent of tellurium).
    Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire 
rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire 
cord quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 tire cord quality wire 
rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-
sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no 
more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) 
having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon 
segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 
04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a 
length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter 
of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing 
by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 
percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 
0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 
0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, 
in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
    This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) Grade 1080 
tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 
7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial 
decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 
200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) 
having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using 
European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no 
surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being 
drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per 
ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the 
proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 
0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the 
aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of 
nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, 
of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not 
more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a 
chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
    The designation of the products as ``tire cord quality'' or ``tire 
bead quality'' indicates the acceptability of the product for use in 
the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber 
reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality 
designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being 
used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement 
applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire 
bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the 
scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of 
importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use 
certification for the importation of such products may be required. 
Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally 
be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
    All products meeting the physical description of subject 
merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this 
scope.
    The products under investigation are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 
7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 
7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 
7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
    See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod: Requests for exclusion 
of various tire cord quality wire rod and tire bead quality wire rod 
products from the scope of antidumping duty (Brazil, Canada, Egypt, 
Germany, Indonesia,

[[Page 17381]]

Mexico, Moldova, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and 
Venezuela) and countervailing duty (Brazil, Canada, Germany, Trinidad 
and Tobago, and Turkey) investigations.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of 
Investigation section, above, and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during 
the POI are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have 
relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
comparison-market sales of the foreign like product or constructed 
value (CV): grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, 
deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter 
range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the 
Department 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 the next most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.
    On January 8 and March 14, 2002, the petitioners submitted comments 
questioning the appropriateness of CIL's designation of certain U.S. 
sales as sales of non-prime merchandise and asked the Department to 
consider all merchandise sold in the United States as prime. CIL had 
originally requested that the Department excuse it from reporting these 
sales as they constituted a very small percentage of U.S. sales and 
because there were no sales of non-prime merchandise in the home 
market. The Department denied that request. See Department's January 4, 
2002, memorandum from Tisha Loeper-Viti to Gary Taverman. In 
consideration of the information currently on the record regarding this 
merchandise, the Department has accepted these sales' present 
designation as non-prime for purposes of the preliminary determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of steel wire rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago were made in the United States at LTFV, we compared the export 
price (EP) and the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value 
(NV), as described in the Export Price and Constructed Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average EPs and 
CEPs. We compared these to weighted-average home market prices, or to 
CV, as appropriate.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. 
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of 
importation by the producer or exporter outside of the United States to 
an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under 
subsection 772(c) of the Act.
    Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after 
the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under 
subsections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. We based CEP on the applicable 
terms of sale through Ispat North America Inc. (INA), Ispat Inland Bar 
Products, a division of Ispat Inland Inc. (Inland Bar), or Walker Wire 
(Ispat) Inc. (Walker Wire), CIL's affiliated sellers in the United 
States.
    We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the packed 
prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we calculated the 
EP and CEP by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, and duties, where 
appropriate.
    Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to 
calculate CEP. Accordingly, where appropriate, we deducted indirect 
selling expenses, direct selling expenses (credit, warranty, and 
cleaning and coating expenses directly linked to sales transactions) 
related to commercial activity in the United States. Pursuant to 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act, where applicable, we made an adjustment 
for CEP profit.
    The petitioners have commented that many sales in CIL's U.S.-market 
database are missing the date that the merchandise entered the United 
States (field ENTRYDTU). The petitioners have asked the Department to 
assign values for those that are missing by using facts available. CIL 
has provided this date for CEP sales made by two of its U.S. 
affiliates, INA and Inland Bar, and used it in the calculation of 
inventory carrying costs both in the country of exportation and in the 
United States. For sales by CIL's third U.S. affiliate, Walker Wire, 
CIL calculated inventory carrying costs using a different methodology, 
one based on the average number of days the merchandise spent in 
inventory in the United States, and did not provide an entry date for 
these sales. The Department has reviewed the methodologies used by the 
respondent to calculate inventory carrying costs and finds 
preliminarily that, based on the information currently on the record, 
they are appropriate. Thus, it is not necessary to assign entry dates 
to sales by Walker Wire using facts available.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate), that the time of the sales reasonably 
corresponds to the time of the sales used to determine EP or CEP, and 
that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper 
comparison with the EP or CEP. The statute contemplates that quantities 
(or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less 
than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States. See section 
773(a)(1)(C)(iii).
    We found that CIL had a viable home market for steel wire rod. CIL 
submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV.
    In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices section below.
    The petitioners have asked the Department to reject CIL's reported 
payment dates and disallow any adjustment for credit expenses in the 
home market. CIL did not report the actual date that payment was 
received but rather, provided an ``effective'' payment date for each 
sale, in accordance with the applicable payment terms, in order to 
calculate the proper credit expense, if any. Upon careful review of 
CIL's methodology and all relevant information on the record, the 
Department accepts CIL's methodology for purposes of the preliminary 
determination and finds that the reported credit expenses accurately 
reflect CIL's imputed credit expenses.

[[Page 17382]]

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on allegations contained in the petition, and in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that steel wire rod sales were made in Trinidad and 
Tobago at prices below the cost of production (COP). See Initiation 
Notice. As a result, the Department has conducted an investigation to 
determine whether CIL made home market sales at prices below its COP 
during the POI, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We 
conducted the COP analysis described below.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of CIL's cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home 
market general and administrative (G&A) expenses, including interest 
expenses, selling expenses, and packing expenses.
    We relied on the COP data based on Trinidad and Tobago GAAP 
submitted by CIL in its cost questionnaire responses except for the 
following adjustments:
    a. We denied an adjustment submitted by CIL that had decreased 
CIL's reported total cost of manufacturing for iron ore purchased from 
an affiliated party. For further details, see memorandum from Robert B. 
Greger to Neal M. Halper: Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination, dated April 
2, 2002 (Cost Memorandum).
    b. We adjusted CIL's submitted G&A expenses to correct for a 
double-counted deduction for net foreign exchange gains on accounts 
payable. In addition, we adjusted total G&A to include sundry income 
and expenses and gains on the sale of assets, and exclude foreign 
exchange gains on accounts receivable and cash. For further details, 
see the Cost Memorandum.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    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 these sales had been made at 
prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a period 
of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were 
sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP 
to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, 
discounts and rebates.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial 
quantities'' within an extended period of time in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared 
prices to POI average costs, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the 
Act, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices that 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 
Therefore, we disregarded these below cost sales.
    We found that, for certain models of steel wire rod, more than 20 
percent of the home market sales were made within an extended period of 
time at prices less than the COP. Further, the prices did not provide 
for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
therefore disregarded these below-cost sales and used the remaining 
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We based home market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for 
foreign inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 
In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense 
and warranty) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, 
warranty, and cleaning and coating expenses directly linked to sales 
transactions). For comparisons made to CEP sales, we did not add U.S. 
direct selling expenses. No other adjustments to NV were claimed or 
allowed.
    We found comparable sales in the home market for all U.S. sales. 
Therefore, we did not use constructed value as a basis for normal 
value, for purposes of the preliminary determination.
    We note that CIL, in its February 25, 2002, submission, argued that 
certain home market sales were outside the ordinary course of trade. 
However, upon examining the information provided on the record, we have 
preliminarily determined that these sales are in the ordinary course of 
trade and have, therefore, included these sales in our margin 
calculation. For further details, see the Department's Preliminary 
Determination Regarding Ordinary Course of Trade memorandum from Gary 
Taverman to Bernard T. Carreau, dated April 2, 2002.

D. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. 
The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market 
or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A 
expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of 
the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. 
For CEP transactions, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more 
remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61733, 61746 (November 19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained 
information from CIL about the marketing stages involved in the 
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by CIL for each channel of distribution. 
In identifying levels of trade for EP and home market

[[Page 17383]]

sales we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting 
price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the 
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
    In the home market, CIL reported sales to end users as its only 
channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, CIL reported sales through 
two channels of distribution, one involving sales made directly by CIL 
to end users and, occasionally, trading companies, and the second 
involving sales made by CIL's affiliated U.S. resellers to end users. 
We have determined that the sales made by CIL directly to U.S. 
customers are EP sales and those made by CIL's affiliated U.S. 
resellers constitute CEP sales.
    We found the home market and EP sales to be at the same LOT. CIL's 
EP sales and home market sales were both made primarily to end-users. 
In both cases, the selling functions performed by CIL were almost 
identical in both markets. Other than freight & delivery arrangement, 
which was only provided for U.S. sales, and sales force development, 
which was only provided in the home market, in both markets CIL 
provided services such as: strategic and economic planning, sales 
forecasting, solicitation of orders, technical advice, price 
negotiation, processing purchase orders, invoicing, extending credit, 
managing accounts receivable, and making arrangements for warranty 
related to sales. It was therefore unnecessary to make any level-of-
trade adjustment for comparison of EP and home market prices.
    CIL makes CEP sales to the United States through its affiliates, 
INA, Inland Bar, and Walker Wire. Sales through CIL's affiliates are 
normally made to unrelated end-users in the U.S. market. CIL's 
affiliates perform all of the selling functions, such as making freight 
and delivery arrangements, sales force development, market research, 
solicitation of orders, technical advice, negotiating prices, 
invoicing, acting as mill and customer liaison, repairing and cleaning 
coils, and making arrangements for warranty related to sales. However, 
because in our LOT analysis for CEP sales we only consider the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of the expenses 
incurred by the U.S. affiliate, the record indicates that for CIL's CEP 
sales there are substantially fewer services performed than for the 
sales in its home market. Therefore, we have determined that CIL's home 
market sales are made at a different, and more advanced, stage of 
marketing than the LOT of the CEP sales.
    Accordingly, we determined that a level-of-trade adjustment may be 
appropriate when comparing to CEP sales. However, the data available do 
not permit a determination that there is a pattern of consistent price 
differences between sales at different levels of trade in the home 
market, as there is only one level of trade in the home market. 
Therefore, because CIL's home market sales are made at a different, and 
more advanced, stage of marketing than the LOT of the CEP sales, we 
have made a CEP offset to CIL's NV in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. This offset is equal to the amount of indirect 
expenses incurred in the home market not exceeding the amount of the 
deductions made from the U.S. price in accordance with 772(d)(1)(D) of 
the Act.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will make a final determination concerning critical 
circumstances in this case when we make our final determination 
regarding sales at LTFV in this investigation, which will be no later 
than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.

Suspension of Liquidation

    Because of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances 
finding in this case, we are directing the Customs Service to suspend 
liquidation of any unliquidated entries of steel wire rod from Trinidad 
and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date which is 90 days prior to the date on which this notice 
is published in the Federal Register. We are instructing 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 or CEP, as 
indicated in the chart below for imports from Trinidad and Tobago. 
These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until 
further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caribbean Ispat Limited....................................        12.38
All Others.................................................        12.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will normally disclose calculations performed within 
five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of 
the proceeding in this investigation in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

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

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification reports. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of 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. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide on diskette to the Department 
an additional copy of the public version of any such comments.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
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 any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to more than one steel wire 
rod case, the Department may schedule a single hearing to encompass all 
those cases.

[[Page 17384]]

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 participate if 
one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 2, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-8703 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P