[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19157-19159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9509]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2002 / 
Notices  

[[Page 19157]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-602-804, A-570-872, A-533-826, A-580-848, A-421-810, A-821-815]


Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Australia, the 
People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the 
Netherlands, and the Russian Federation

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determinations of critical circumstances 
in the less-than-fair-value investigations of certain cold-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from Australia, the People's Republic of 
China, India, the Republic of Korea (with the exception of one 
company), the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Commerce'') has preliminarily 
determined that critical circumstances exist for imports of certain 
cold-rolled carbon steel flat products (``CRS'') from Australia, the 
People's Republic of China (``China''), India, the Republic of Korea 
(``Korea'') (with the exception of one responding company), the 
Netherlands, and the Russian Federation (``Russia'').

DATES: April 18, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas at 202-482-0651 
(Australia); Carrie Blozy at 202-482-0165 (China); Mark Manning at 202-
482-5253 (India); Mark Young at 202-482-6397 (Korea); Geoffrey Craig at 
202-482-4161 (the Netherlands); or Juanita H. Chen at 202-482-0409 
(Russia), Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Background

    On October 26, 2001, the Department initiated investigations to 
determine whether imports of CRS from, inter alia, Australia, China, 
India, Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (``LTFV''). See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, 
Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New 
Zealand, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, South 
Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela, 66 FR 
54198 (October 26, 2001) (``Initiation Notice''). On November 19, 2001, 
the International Trade Commission (``Commission'') published its 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured or threatened with material 
injury by reason of imports of CRS from all of these countries. See 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Products From Argentina, Australia, 
Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the 
Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, 
Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela, 66 FR 57985 (November 19, 2001). On 
November 29, 2001, the petitioners\1\ alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigation of CRS from Russia. On 
December 7, 2001, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis 
to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the 
antidumping investigations of CRS from Argentina, Australia, China, 
India, the Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, Korea, and Taiwan. 
Petitioners also requested that the Department make an expedited 
finding with regard to critical circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Of the petitioners in the concurrent antidumping duty 
investigations (Bethlehem Steel Corporation, LTV Steel Company, 
Inc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, 
Inc., United States Steel LLC, WCI Steel, Inc., and Weirton Steel 
Corporation), the petitioners alleging critical circumstances are 
Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., WCI Steel, Inc., and 
Weirton Steel Company (hereinafter collectively ``Petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.206(c)(2)(i), because Petitioners 
submitted their critical circumstances allegations 20 days or more 
before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations, the 
Department must issue the preliminary critical circumstances finding 
not later than the date of the preliminary determinations. Accordingly, 
at this time we are issuing the preliminary critical circumstances 
finding in the investigations of CRS from Australia, China, India, 
Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia.\2\ A full discussion of our 
analyses may be found below and in the two concurrent country-specific 
memoranda (``Critical Circumstances Memoranda''), dated April 10, 2002. 
Parties can find public versions of these memoranda on file at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, in the Central Records Unit, in room B-099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We intend to issue our preliminary critical circumstances 
findings with respect to Argentina, South Africa and Taiwan 
concurrently with our preliminary dumping determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping 
and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or 
elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or 
for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have 
known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less 
than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by 
reason of such sales, and, (B) there have been massive imports of the 
subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 
351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides

[[Page 19158]]

that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that, ``In 
general, unless the imports during the 'relatively short period' . . . 
have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an 
immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will 
not consider the imports massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the 
Department's regulations defines ``relatively short period'' as 
generally the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., 
the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. 
The regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds 
importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time 
prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, 
the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from 
that earlier time.
    In determining whether the relevant statutory criteria have been 
satisfied, we considered: (i) the evidence presented by Petitioners in 
their November 9, 2001, December 7, 2001 and January 14, 2002 letters; 
(ii) exporter-specific shipment data requested by the Department; (iii) 
import data available through the Commission's DataWeb website; and 
(iv) the Commission's preliminary injury determinations.

History of Dumping

    To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 
733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence 
of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the 
United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. See Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). Imports 
of CRS from Korea and the Netherlands were subject to antidumping 
duties from 1993 through December 2000. See Revocation of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Carbon Steel Products From 
Canada, Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, 65 FR 78467 
(December 15, 2000). Accordingly, we find a history of dumping of CRS 
from Korea and the Netherlands. Imports of CRS from Russia are 
currently subject to a Canadian antidumping duty order, the final 
determination of which was dated July 28, 1999. See Canadian 
International Trade Tribunal Cold-Rolled Decision(August 27, 1999). 
Accordingly, we find a history of dumping of CRS from Russia. However, 
we are not aware of any antidumping order in any country on CRS from 
Australia, China or India. For this reason, we do not find a history of 
dumping and material injury of the subject merchandise from Australia, 
China or India pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.

Importer Knowledge of Injurious Dumping

    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known the exporter was 
selling CRS at LTFV, the Department normally considers margins of 25 
percent or more for export price (``EP'') sales and 15 percent or more 
for constructed export price (``CEP'') sales sufficient to impute 
importer knowledge of dumping. See, e.g., 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). The Department generally bases its decision 
with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the preliminary 
determination. However, because section 733(e)(1) of the Act permits 
the Department to make a preliminary critical circumstances 
determination prior to the issuance of the preliminary dumping 
determination, we may rely on other information to determine whether 
importers had knowledge exporters were selling CRS at LTFV.
    In the instant cases we find the antidumping petitions contain 
sufficient information to conduct our analysis of this criterion. The 
petition estimated dumping margins for China of 70.68 to 74.16 percent. 
See Initiation Notice, 66 FR 54198. The petition estimated dumping 
margins for India of 153.65 percent which, based on additional 
information provided after the petitions were filed, the Department 
recalculated as 128.38 percent. Because the highest estimated dumping 
margin calculated in the petition for each of these countries is 
greater than 25 percent, there is a reasonable basis to impute 
knowledge of dumping with respect to imports from these countries. 
Therefore, we have imputed importer knowledge of dumping of the subject 
merchandise exported from China and India.
    The petition estimated dumping margins for Australia of 24.06 
percent. After initiation of the antidumping duty investigation against 
Australia, the mandatory respondent selected by the Department reported 
that 100 percent of its U.S. sales during the POI are CEP sales. Given 
that the respondent's reported CEP sales include the sales that 
constitute the average unit value (``AUV'') used by Petitioners in the 
estimated dumping margin, and the AUV is based on the customs import 
value (which contains no CEP expenses that must be deducted in order to 
be used in an estimated margin calculation), it is appropriate to apply 
the estimated dumping margin against the 15 percent threshold for CEP 
sales. See Critical Circumstances Memorandum for Australia, at 5-6. 
Accordingly, because the estimated dumping margin calculated in the 
petition for Australia is greater than 15 percent, there is a 
reasonable basis to impute knowledge of dumping with respect to imports 
from Australia. Therefore, we have imputed importer knowledge of 
dumping of the subject merchandise exported from Australia.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect an importer knew or should have known there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of dumped imports, the Department normally 
will look to the preliminary injury determination of the Commission. If 
the Commission finds a reasonable indication of present material injury 
to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will determine that a 
reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge there was likely 
to be material injury by reason of dumped imports. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 
(November 20, 1997). In the present case the Commission has found a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured or threatened with material injury due to dumping of 
imports of CRS from each of the named countries. See Determinations and 
Views of the Commission: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From 
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, 
Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, 
Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela, Investigations 
Nos. 701-TA-422-425 and 731-TA-964-983 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 
No. 3471, November 2001 (``Commission Determination''). Section 771(11) 
of the Act provides that in the event the Commission is ``evenly 
divided as to whether the determination should be affirmative or 
negative, the

[[Page 19159]]

{Commission} shall be deemed to have made an affirmative 
determination.'' By analogy, the Department finds that, where the 
Commission is evenly divided between a finding of material injury and a 
finding of threat of material injury, it is reasonable to treat the 
finding as an affirmative finding of material injury. As a result, the 
Department has determined there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect importers of CRS from Australia, China, India, Korea, the 
Netherlands, and Russia knew or should have known there was likely to 
be material injury by reason of these dumped imports.

Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing 
of the petition (i.e., the ``base period'') to a comparable period of 
at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the 
``comparison period''). However, as stated in section 351.206(i) of the 
Department's regulations, ``if the Secretary finds importers, or 
exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to 
the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, then the 
Secretary may consider a time period of not less than three months from 
that earlier time.'' Imports normally will be considered massive when 
imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or 
more compared to imports during the base period.
    For the reasons set forth in the Critical Circumstances Memoranda, 
we find sufficient bases exist for finding importers, or exporters or 
producers, knew or should have known antidumping cases were pending on 
CRS from Australia, China, India, Korea, the Netherlands, and Russia by 
May 2001 at the latest. Accordingly, we determined December 2000 
through May 2001 should serve as the ``base period,'' while June 2001 
through November 2001 should serve as the ``comparison period,'' in 
determining whether or not imports have been massive over a relatively 
short period.
    According to 19 C.F.R. 351.206(i), the comparison period normally 
should be at least three months; however, if we determine that 
importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe that a 
proceeding was likely, then the Department may consider a longer 
period. In this case, we have chosen a period of six months as the 
period for comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of 
the subject merchandise have been massive for several reasons. First, 
at this time we have shipment data covering the six-month period for 
all exporters being examined for this purpose. We do not believe it is 
appropriate to use different periods for different exporters. Second, 
we believe that choosing a six-month period in general properly 
reflects the ``relatively short period'' commanded by the statute for 
determining whether imports have been massive. See Section 733(e)(1)(B) 
of the Act. Finally, we are concerned that selecting a longer period 
for comparison might, in some cases, hamper our ability to fulfill our 
obligation under the statute to determine whether a genuine surge in 
imports has occurred shortly after exporters knew or should have known 
about the likelihood of an antidumping petition. However, we welcome 
comments about the use of a six-month period both in this case and in 
general.
    Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.206(h), we found imports of CRS increased 
by more than 15 percent for CRS from Australia, China, India, Korea, 
the Netherlands, and Russia in the comparison period; accordingly, we 
find that imports have been massive for each of the named countries. 
With respect to Korea, we noted that the import statistics from Korea 
indicated that imports from Korea increased 97.12 percent. The imports 
for one of the respondents, Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (``POSCO''), 
increased by well over 15 percent as well. However, imports for the 
other respondent, Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (``Dongbu''), increased by 
less than 15 percent. Accordingly, we find imports were massive for 
POSCO and all other producers/exporters, except for Dongbu.
    In summary, we find there is a history of dumping and material 
injury by reason of dumped imports of CRS from Korea, the Netherlands, 
and Russia. We also find there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect importers knew or should have known exporters were selling CRS 
from Australia, China and India at LTFV and had knowledge of the 
likelihood of material injury with respect to such imports of CRS. We 
further find there have been massive imports of CRS over a relatively 
short period from Australia, China, India, Korea (with the exception of 
Dongbu), the Netherlands, and Russia.

CONCLUSION

    Given the analysis summarized above, and described in more detail 
in the Critical Circumstances Memoranda, we preliminarily determine 
critical circumstances exist for imports of CRS from Australia, China, 
India, Korea (with the exception of Dongbu), the Netherlands, and 
Russia.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, if the Department 
issues affirmative preliminary determinations of sales at LTFV in the 
investigations with respect to imports of CRS, the Department, at that 
time, will direct the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of Australia, China, India, Korea (with the 
exception of Dongbu), the Netherlands, and Russia that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to 
the date of publication in the Federal Register of our preliminary 
determinations in these investigations. Customs shall require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping 
margins reflected in the preliminary determinations published in the 
Federal Register. The suspension of liquidation to be issued after our 
preliminary determinations will remain in effect until further notice.

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will make final determinations concerning critical circumstances 
for all countries named in Petitioners' allegations when we make our 
final dumping determinations in these investigations, which will be 75 
days (unless extended) after issuance of the preliminary dumping 
determinations.

Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
Commission of our determinations.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 10, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-9509 Filed 4-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S