[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17401-17407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-841-805]


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Moldova: Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that carbon and certain alloy steel 
wire rod (wire rod) from Moldova is being, or is likely to be, sold in 
the United States at less than fair value (LFTV), as provided in 
section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The estimated margin 
is shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

DATES: April 10, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Gilgunn or Scott Lindsay, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4236 or (202) 482-0780, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2001 through June 
30, 2001.

[[Page 17402]]

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by these investigations 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, Mexico, Moldova, South Africa, Trinidad and 
Tobago, Ukraine, and Venezuela) and countervailing duty (Brazil, 
Canada, Germany, Trinidad and Tobago, and Turkey) investigations.''

Case History

    On September 24, 2002, the Department initiated antidumping 
investigations of wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Germany, 
Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, 
and Venezuela. (See Notice of 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) (``Notice of Initiation'')). The petitioners in this 
investigation are Co-Steel Raritan, Inc., GS Industries, Keystone 
Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. 
(``petitioners''). Since the initiation of these investigations, the 
following events have occurred.
    On October 9, 2001, petitioners requested that the scope of the 
investigation be amended to exclude high carbon, high tensile 1080 
grade tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod actually used in the 
production of tire cord and bead, as defined by specific dimensional 
characteristics and specifications. On November 28, 2001, the five 
largest U.S. tire manufacturers and the industry trade association, the 
Rubber Manufacturers Association, submitted a letter to the Department 
in response to petitioners' October 9, 2001, submission regarding the 
exclusion of certain 1080 grade tire cord and tire bead wire rod used 
in the production of tire cord and bead. Additionally, the tire 
manufacturers requested clarification from the Department if 1090 grade 
is included in petitioners' October 9, 2001, scope exclusion request. 
The tire manufacturers requested an exclusion from the scope of this 
investigation for 1070 grade wire rod and related grades, citing a lack 
of domestic production capacity to meet the requirements of the tire 
industry. On November 28, 2001, petitioners further clarified and 
modified their October 9, 2001 amendment of the scope of the petition. 
Finally, on January 21, 2002, Tokusen U.S.A., Inc. submitted a request 
that grade 1070 tire cord wire rod, and tire cord wire rod more 
generally, be excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty and 
countervailing duty investigations. The Department's analysis of scope 
issues and exclusion requests is discussed in the Scope Memo.
    On October 15, 2001, the United States International Trade 
Commission

[[Page 17403]]

(USITC) notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury 
determination on imports of subject merchandise from Brazil, Canada, 
Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. 
On October 29, 2001, the USITC published its preliminary determination 
stating that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the 
United States is materially injured by reason of imports of the subject 
merchandise from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, 
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod From Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, 
Moldova, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, and 
Venezuela. 66 FR 54539 (October 29, 2001).
    The Department issued a letter on October 16, 2001 to interested 
parties in all of the concurrent wire rod antidumping investigations, 
providing an opportunity to comment on the Department's proposed model 
match characteristics and hierarchy. 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,. and 
Ispat Sidbec Inc. (Canada).
    On January 17, 2002, petitioners requested that the Department 
extend the deadline for issuance of the preliminary determinations by 
30 days. On January 28, 2002, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the notice postponing the preliminary determinations to March 
13, 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 3877). On March 4, 2002, petitioners submitted a letter 
to the Department requesting the Department to extend the deadline for 
issuance of the preliminary determinations by an additional 20 days. 
The Department published in the Federal Register the notice postponing 
the preliminary determinations an additional 20 days 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).
    With respect to the investigation involving Moldova, the following 
events have occurred. On November 2, 2001, the Department issued a 
letter to the Embassy of Moldova in Washington, D.C. (Moldovan 
Embassy), requesting quantity and value information for all Moldovan 
producers/exporters who manufactured or exported subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POI. The Department requested that the 
Moldovan Embassy forward this request to all Moldovan producers and 
exporters of wire rod that was sold to the United States during the 
period of investigation (``POI''). On November 27, 2001, the Moldovan 
Embassy submitted a letter confirming that the Government of the 
Republic of Moldova (GORM) had distributed the ``questionnaire to all 
Moldovan companies who manufacture and export the wire rod to the 
United States'' and asking for an extension of the deadline for a 
response to the questionnaire. On December 3, 2001, Department 
officials telephoned the Moldovan Embassy to ascertain how many 
Moldovan companies manufactured and exported wire rod to the United 
States during the POI and to inform the GORM that the Department could 
not grant any extension of the deadline for responses until the GORM 
notified the Department of names of the companies requesting extensions 
(see Memorandum from the Team to the File regarding ``Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Moldova,'' dated December 3, 2001 on 
file in the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of the Department of 
Commerce (CRU)). The GORM has not identified any wire rod producers or 
exporters other than Moldova Steel Works (MSW).
    On November 2, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to MSW, the only Moldovan producer/exporter named in the 
petition. On November 8, 2001, the Department issued minor revisions to 
the questionnaire. (See ``Memorandum to the File,'' from Scott Lindsay 
through Dana Mermelstein, dated November 8, 2001, on file in the CRU.)
    On November 28, 2001, the Department invited interested parties to 
comment on surrogate country selection and to provide publicly 
available information for valuing the factors of production. We 
received comments regarding surrogate country selection from MSW and 
the petitioners on December 4, 2001. Petitioners submitted surrogate 
value information on January 11, 2002 and March 19, 2002.
    On November 30, 2001 and December 27, 2001, respectively, the 
Department received MSW's section A questionnaire response and sections 
C and D responses. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires on 
December 20, 2001, January 25, 2002, and February 7, 2002. MSW 
submitted supplemental questionnaire responses on January 16, 2002, 
February 21, 2002, and March 4, 2002. As requested by MSW, the 
Department granted several extensions of deadlines for filing 
questionnaire responses. Petitioners submitted comments on MSW's 
questionnaire responses on December 10, 2001, January 23, 2002, March 
4, 2002, and March 19, 2002.
    On November 14, 2001, MSW submitted a request for, and information 
in support of, graduation to market economy status for Moldova, 
effective January 1, 2001. On November 30, 2001, MSW requested that the 
Department apply market-economy methodology in all antidumping 
proceedings initiated against Moldova on or after January 1, 2001. On 
December 6, 2001, petitioners submitted comments regarding the request 
for market economy graduation. On December 13, 2001, MSW submitted a 
letter from the GORM requesting that the Department revoke Moldova's 
non-market-economy (NME) status. On December 21, 2001, MSW submitted a 
letter reiterating its view that the Department should graduate Moldova 
to market economy status and issue a market-economy questionnaire. 
Although the Department did not issue a market-economy questionnaire to 
MSW, MSW filed its market economy questionnaire responses on December 
28, 2001.
    On December 21, 2001, the GORM clarified its request for revocation 
of NME status. On January 9, 2002, the GORM further clarified its 
request for revocation of NME status. These two letters were placed on 
the record by the Department on January 14, 2002. See ``Memorandum 
regarding Telephone Conversation with Victor Chirella from the Embassy 
of Moldova,'' dated January 14, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Department 
officials met with representatives from the Moldovan Embassy to discuss 
the status of Moldova's market economy request (see ``Memorandum to the 
File regarding Ex-Parte Meeting: Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Moldova,'' dated January 
25, 2002). On January 16, 2001, petitioners commented on the GORM's 
December 21, 2001, and January 15, 2002, letters. On January 29, 2002 
and February 28, 2002, MSW commented on the GORM's letters and urged 
the Department to apply market economy methodology to MSW.
    On February 5, 2002, Department officials met with an official of 
the GORM's WTO Division to discuss procedural questions regarding 
graduation from NME status (see ``Memorandum regarding Meeting with 
Official from the Republic of Moldova

[[Page 17404]]

Ministry of Economy,'' dated February 6, 2002). On February 25, 2002, 
Department officials met with counsel to MSW to discuss MSW's request 
that the Department proceed with its NME revocation analysis as quickly 
as possible (see ``Memorandum regarding Ex-Parte Meeting on the 
Antidumping Investigation of Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Moldova,'' 
dated February 27, 2002.)

Critical Circumstances

    On December 5, 2001, petitioners alleged that there 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. On December 21, 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 Trinidad and Tobago. On February 4, 2002, the Department 
preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist with respect 
to wire rod from Moldova. See Memorandum to Faryar Shirzad Re: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 
Rod from Moldova - Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances (February 4, 2002); See also Carbon and Alloy Wire Rod 
from Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224 
(February 11, 2002).

Non-Market-Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated Moldova as a non-market-economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping investigations. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Reinforcing 
Bars from Moldova, 66 FR 33525 (June 22, 2001). This NME designation 
remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department (see section 
771(18)(C) of the Act). As noted above, MSW has requested revocation of 
Moldova's NME status. The Department is currently analyzing this 
request. For the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have 
continued to treat Moldova as an NME country.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base the normal value 
(``NV'') on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of individual factor values are discussed 
under the ``Normal Value'' section, below.

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject 
merchandise in an NME country a single rate, unless an exporter can 
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to 
a separate rate. The Department's separate rates test is not concerned, 
in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export 
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these 
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on 
controls over export-related investment, pricing, and output decision-
making process at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 
1997); Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 
17, 1997); and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 
14725, 14727 (March 20, 1995). To establish whether a firm is 
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 
(Sparklers), and amplified in Final Determination of Sales at Less-
Than-Fair-Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 
59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, 
the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter 
can affirmatively demonstrate the absence of both (1) de jure and (2) 
de facto governmental control over export activities. See Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 
22544 (May 8, 1995).
    MSW has submitted separate rates information in its section A 
responses, and has requested a separate, company-specific rate. In the 
context of analyzing this request, the Department has asked MSW to 
clarify its relationship with the GORM and the ``Transnistrian Moldovan 
Republic'' (TMR). In response to the Department's requests for 
information and documentation addressing the relationship between MSW 
and the GORM, MSW provided copies of legislative enactments and other 
supporting documentation discussing the relationship between MSW and 
the TMR. Further, MSW has stated that its business operations ``are 
governed only by legislation in the TMR, not Moldova.'' The national 
authority or country recognized by the United States is the Republic of 
Moldova, not the TMR. Thus, it is not possible to conduct the type of 
separate rates analysis envisioned in the practice as set forth in 
Sparklers and amplified in Silicon Carbide because the facts here do 
not permit an evaluation of MSW in the context of the laws of Moldova. 
As such, and as discussed in more detail below, we are unable to 
analyze MSW's claim for a separate rate; accordingly, for purposes of 
this preliminary determination, we cannot grant MSW a separate rate.
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    During the course of this investigation, the Department has 
repeatedly asked MSW to provide copies of GORM legislation or 
regulations (e.g., business licenses, export laws, business laws, 
export control lists, price control lists, etc.) which relate to its 
export operations and which address the three criteria listed above. 
While MSW did provide, in its November 14, 2001, request for NME 
revocation, copies of the GORM's constitution, labor laws, and 
investment laws, these documents do not address the issue of export 
operations or decentralized control of companies. In its November 30, 
2001, January 16, 2002, and March 4, 2002 questionnaire responses, MSW 
indicated that all of its business operations, including its export 
operations, are conducted in accordance with the relevant legislation 
of the TMR, which is neither the principle government authority with 
which our analysis must be concerned, nor a ``country'' recognized by 
the United States. Indeed, as a member of the World Trade Organization 
and the United Nations, GORM, and not the TMR, is recognized by these 
international bodies as the sovereign authority in Moldova. 
Specifically, in response to a request for legislative enactments or 
other measures by the GORM centralizing or decentralizing control of 
MSW's export activities, MSW stated ``MSW's export activities

[[Page 17405]]

are governed only by legislation in [TMR], not Moldova'' (MSW's March 
4, 2002 supplemental response at 15).
    In general, in applying the separate rates test to companies 
operating in NME countries, the Department 's goal is to determine 
whether the company, on a de jure and de facto basis, operates outside 
of the control of the government of the country under investigation. In 
this investigation, that country is the Republic of Moldova, and its 
government is identified as the GORM. Therefore, the separate rates 
test requires us to examine whether MSW operates outside the control of 
the GORM. Because MSW has reported that its export activities are 
governed only by the legislation of the TMR, and has not provided any 
of the relevant legislation and other documentation as issued by the 
GORM, the facts on the record in this case do not permit the analysis 
required by our separate rates test.

Moldova-Wide Rate

    For all NME cases, the Department has implemented a policy by which 
there is a rebuttable presumption that all exporters or producers 
comprise a single exporter under common government control, the ``NME 
entity.'' The Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity, 
unless an exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. 
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that MSW was 
the only Moldovan producer and exporter to sell the subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POI. Since the only Moldovan producer 
and exporter of the subject merchandise responded to the Department's 
questionnaire, and we have no reason to believe that there are other 
non-responding exporters/producers of the subject merchandise during 
the POI, we calculated a Moldova-wide rate based on the weighted- 
average margin determined for MSW. This Moldova-wide rate applies to 
all entries of subject merchandise.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by MSW for 
export to the United States were made at less than fair value, we 
compared EP to NV, as described below in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs 
to the NVs.
    On March 19, 2002, in a letter to the Department, petitioners 
requested that the Department apply total adverse facts available to 
determine the dumping margin for MSW for the preliminary determination. 
In their letter, petitioners make the following allegations: 1) MSW's 
responses have been intentionally misleading in material respects; 2) 
MSW has refused to provide information concerning possible market 
economy inputs; and 3) MSW has refused to provide information 
concerning its parent company and other affiliates. Moreover, 
petitioners maintain that substantial record evidence demonstrates a 
pattern of uncooperative behavior warranting application of adverse 
facts available. The Department has examined MSW's submissions and 
data, and preliminarily finds that they are adequate for purposes of 
calculating a dumping margin.
    In its responses, MSW has provided sufficient information upon 
which to base a preliminary analysis. While there appear to be some 
gaps in the record, such as incomplete information pertaining to 
affiliation, we do not find those gaps significant enough to render 
MSW's questionnaire responses unusable for our preliminary 
determination. Moreover, currently there is no indication on the record 
that MSW failed to cooperate to the best of its ability.
    We disagree with petitioners concerning certain of their claims 
about MSW's refusal to provide the information as requested. For 
example, MSW did provide adequate information on its purchase of inputs 
from market economies to use in the preliminary determination. Although 
petitioners argue that it is insufficient because no translated 
invoices were provided to support the reported prices, we find that for 
the purposes of a preliminary determination, such invoices are not 
essential to our use of these reported prices. Before verification, the 
Department will seek clarification on certain issues, particularly on 
affiliation, and the Department will conduct a complete verification 
before reaching a final determination. However, for the purposes of 
this preliminary determination, we are relying on the information 
submitted by MSW to determine the export price and NV.

Export Price

    For MSW, we used EP methodology for this preliminary determination 
in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States prior to importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'') 
methodology was not otherwise appropriate. We calculated EP based on 
FOB prices. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting 
price (gross unit price) for inland freight from the plant/warehouse to 
the port of export and domestic brokerage and handling. Because the 
domestic inland freight and brokerage were paid in a nonmarket economy 
currency, we based these charges on surrogate values from India. (See 
``Normal Value'' section below for further discussion.)
    We note that the petitioner has raised the issue of MSW's potential 
affiliation with its reported customers and has argued that MSW's sales 
should be treated as CEP sales. After an examination of the record and 
in accordance with Departmental practice, we have preliminarily treated 
MSW's sales as EP sales. However, we will continue to examine the 
nature of the relationship between MSW and its customers for the 
purposes of the final antidumping determination.

Date of Sale

    Under our current practice, as codified in the Department's 
regulations at section 351.401(i), in identifying the date of sale of 
the subject merchandise, the Department will normally use the date of 
invoice, as recorded in the producer's records kept in the ordinary 
course of business. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 
from Thailand: Final Results of Administrative Review, 63 FR 55578, 
55587 (October 16, 1998). However, in some instances, it may not be 
appropriate to rely on the date of invoice as the date of sale, because 
the evidence may indicate that the material terms of sale were 
established on some date other than invoice date. See Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties: Preamble to the Department's Final 
Regulations at 19 CFR Part 351, 62 FR 27296, 24349 (May 19, 1997). 
Thus, despite the general presumption that the invoice date constitutes 
the date of sale, the Department may determine that this is not an 
appropriate date of sale where the evidence of the respondent's selling 
practice points to a different date on which the material terms of sale 
were set.
    MSW reported its U.S. sales based on the payment order date. The 
payment order date occurs before the date of the commercial invoice, 
and according to MSW is the proximate date on which all material terms 
of sale are set. In the investigation of concrete steel reinforcing bar 
from Moldova, the Department determined that the payment order serves 
the same function as a commercial sales invoice: it is used to notify 
the customer that payment is due; it is used to record monies due to

[[Page 17406]]

MSW; it serves as the basis for accounting for sales in MSW's records; 
and it is generally issued within a day of shipping the merchandise. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Moldova, 66 FR 33525 (June 21, 
2001) (Rebar from Moldova) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 6. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary determination we 
are using payment order date as the date of sale.

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME, and (2) are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. Regarding the first criterion, the 
Department has determined that Pakistan, India, Ghana, Bangladesh, and 
Nigeria are countries comparable to Moldova in terms of overall 
economic development (see memorandum from Jeff May, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Dana Mermelstein, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group 
III, Office 7 dated November 20, 2001 (``Surrogate Country 
Memorandum'')).
    MSW has claimed that Indonesia is the most appropriate surrogate. 
Petitioners have claimed that India is the most appropriate surrogate 
and submitted publicly-available data showing Indian values. We note 
that MSW has argued that:1) India is not a significant producer of wire 
rod; and 2) Indonesia is at a level of economic development comparable 
to Moldova. However, Indonesia is not among the countries identified by 
the Department as comparable to Moldova, and MSW has not provided any 
information for the record to support its claim that we should depart 
from the countries identified in the Surrogate Country Memorandum. 
Petitioners have provided information for the record which indicates 
that there at least fourteen producers of wire rod in India. The record 
also shows that, as noted in the Surrogate Country Memorandum, India is 
economically comparable to Moldova. Moreover, there is sufficient 
publicly-available information on Indian values on the record of the 
instant case. Accordingly, we have calculated normal value using 
publicly available information from India to value MSW's factors of 
production, except as noted below.
    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department's 
regulations, for the final determination in an antidumping 
investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value factors of production within 40 days after the 
date of publication of the preliminary determination.

2. Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production reported by MSW using Indian values, 
except where noted below.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. For those values not 
contemporaneous with the POI, unless otherwise noted below, we adjusted 
for inflation using price indices published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input values to make them delivered prices. For factor values 
where we used Indian import statistics, we did not include data 
pertaining to imports from non-market economy countries. See e.g., 
Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 
53872 (October 7, 1998). We also did not include imports from 
Indonesia, Korea, and Thailand because these countries maintain non-
specific export subsidies. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields From the People's Republic of China,67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002). For a detailed analysis of surrogate values, see Memorandum 
regarding ``Factors of Production Valuation for Preliminary 
Determination,'' dated April 2, 2002 (public version on file in the 
CRU).
    Material Inputs: For those raw material inputs purchased from a 
market economy supplier and paid for in a convertible currency, we used 
the purchase price reported by MSW. For all other inputs that were not 
self-produced by MSW, we valued the material input by Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTS'') number, using cumulative Monthly Statistics of 
Foreign Trade of India or from other Indian sources.
    Packing Materials: For all inputs, we valued the material input by 
HTS number, using cumulative Indian imports from the Monthly Statistics 
of Foreign Trade of India.
    By-Products: Consistent with the Department's practice, we have not 
granted an offset for any of MSW's reported by-products since they 
either: 1) reentered the production process; or 2) were not sold during 
the POI. (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 
2000) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 13.)
    Energy: For electricity, we used a value from the International 
Energy Agency Energy Prices and Taxes (First Quarter 2001). For natural 
gas, we used a value based on the value calculated in the ``Factors of 
Production Valuation for the Preliminary Determination: Antidumping 
Investigation of Steel Reinforcing Bar from Moldova,'' dated January 
16, 2001. (See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Moldova, 66 FR 
8338, (January 30, 2001); as affirmed by Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 
Moldova, 66 FR 33525 (June 21, 2001) (Rebar from Moldova).) For 
industrial water, we used the surrogate value based on the value cited 
in ``Factors of Production Valuation for the Preliminary Determination: 
Antidumping Investigation of Steel Wire Rope from the People's Republic 
of China,'' dated September 25, 2000. (See Notice of Preliminary 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope From 
India and the People's Republic of China; Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope 
From Malaysia, 65 FR 58736 (October 1, 2000); as affirmed by Notice of 
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope 
From India and the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope 
From Malaysia, 66 FR 12759 (February 28, 2001).) For oxygen, nitrogen, 
and argon, we based the surrogate values on 1997 price information 
(adjusted for inflation) from Bhouka Gases Limited, an Indian 
manufacturer of industrial gases.
    Direct, Indirect and Packing Labor: To value the labor input, we 
used Moldova's regression-based wage rate published by Import 
Administration on its website, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The source of 
the wage rate data on the Import Administration website is the 2000 
Yearbook of Labour Statistics, published by the International Labour 
Office (``ILO'') (Geneva: 2000), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing.
    Factory Overhead, Selling General & Administrative (``SG&A''), 
Interest and Profit: To value depreciation, SG&A, interest, and profit, 
we used data from

[[Page 17407]]

the 2001 financial statements of TATA Iron and Steel Company Limited 
(TATA), an Indian steel company which produces the wire rod.
    Inland Freight and domestic brokerage : For all instances in which 
respondent reported domestic inland freight (rail) and domestic 
brokerage, we used surrogate values based on the values cited in Rebar 
from Moldova.

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 from Moldova entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. In addition, based on our preliminary determination 
that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of wire rod 
from Moldova (67 FR 6224), we are directing Customs to suspend 
liquidation of any unliquidated entries of subject merchandise 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 will instruct the Customs Service to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the EP as indicated in the chart below. 
The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further 
notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Exporter/manufacturer                       margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moldova-wide rate...........................................      369.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Moldova-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject 
merchandise.

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 materially injure, or threaten material injury 
to, a U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Unless otherwise informed by the Department, case briefs in six 
copies must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration no later than 50 days after the date of publication of 
this notice, and rebuttal briefs no later than 55 days after the date 
of publication of this notice. We request that a list of authorities 
used and an executive summary of issues accompany any briefs submitted 
to the Department. Such summary should be limited to five pages total, 
including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will 
hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 
If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify parties of the 
date, time, and location of the hearing. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the 
scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. 
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If 
this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination not later than 75 days after the date of this preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 2, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-8707 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S