[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31195-31199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-811]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Belgium

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain cold-rolled carbon 
steel flat products (``cold-rolled steel'') from Belgium are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination. Since we are postponing the final determination, we will 
make our final determination not later than 135 days after the date of 
publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyman Armstrong or Cindy Lai Robinson, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3601 or (202) 482-3797, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on October 18, 2001.\1\ 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). Since the initiation of the 
investigation, the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, LTV Steel Company Inc., National Steel Corporation, 
Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., United States Steel 
Corporation, WCI Steel, Inc., and Weirton Steel Corporation 
(collectively, the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 31, 2001, we solicited comments from interested parties 
regarding the criteria to be used for model-matching purposes, and we 
received comments on our proposed matching criteria on November 8, 
2001. On November 8, 2001, we received model match comments from 
petitioners and respondents. On November 26, 2001, we informed 
respondents of our revised model match criteria.
    On November 13, 2001, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') preliminarily determined 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 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 of 
cold-rolled steel products. See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From 
Argentina, Australia, Belgium,

[[Page 31196]]

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 16, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Sidmar, N.V.\2\ The petitioners made an allegation of 
sales below cost of production (``COP'') in the petition. Based on the 
factual information contained in the petition, we found ``reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect'' that sales below cost occurred. See 
Initiation Notice 66 FR at 54212-13. Accordingly, the Department 
initiated the requested country-wide cost investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 (this section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information about the cost 
of production of merchandise sold in the foreign market and the 
constructed value of merchandise sold in or to the United States. 
Section E requests information about further manufacturing or 
assembly in the United States prior to delivery to unaffiliated 
United States customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 29, 2001, we confirmed our selection of Sidmar, the 
largest producer/exporter of cold-rolled steel from Belgium, as the 
sole mandatory respondent in this proceeding. See Memorandum from Mark 
Young to Melissa Skinner, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Belgium--Selection of 
Respondents,'' dated November 29, 2001, on file in the Central Records 
Unit, room B-099, of the Department's main building (the ``CRU'').
    During the period December 2001 through January 2002, the 
Department received questionnaire responses from Sidmar and its 
affiliated U.S. importer, TradeARBED, Inc. (``TANY'') (collectively 
``Sidmar''). The Department issued supplemental questionnaires on 
February 20 and 28, 2002, and the responses were received on March 20 
and 29, 2002.
    On January 23, 2002, Sidmar requested that the Department permit it 
to exclude sales of full-hard coils which were further annealed and 
skinpassed by its affiliated mill, Laminoir de Dudelange (``LDD''), and 
then imported by its affiliated U.S. processor, J&F Steel Corp. 
(``J&F''). Petitioners Bethlehem Steel Corporation, National Steel 
Corp., Nucor Corp., and United States Steel Corporation submitted their 
comments to oppose the exclusion of sales on February 1, 2002. 
Petitioners provided additional pre-preliminary comments on April 5, 
2002. For further discussion, see the Calculation Memorandum from Lyman 
Armstrong to the File for the Preliminary Determination of Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Belgium, dated April 26, 
2002 (``Sales Calculation Memorandum'').
    On February 7, 2002, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners 
made a timely request to postpone the preliminary determination. We 
granted this request on February 22, 2002, and postponed the 
preliminary determination until no later than April 26, 2002. (See 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Argentina (A-357-816), Australia (A-602-804), Belgium (A-423-811), 
Brazil (A-351-834), the People's Republic of China (A-570-872), France 
(A-427-822), Germany (A-428-834), India (A-533-826), Japan (A-588-859), 
Korea (A-580-848), the Netherlands (A-421-810), New Zealand (A-614-
803), Russia (A-821-815), South Africa (A-791-814), Spain (A-469-812), 
Sweden (A-401-807), Taiwan (A-583-839), Thailand (A-549-819), Turkey 
(A-489-810) and Venezuela (A-307-822), 66 FR at 8227 (February 22, 
2002)).
    On April 16, 2002, the Department issued supplemental Sections D 
and E questionnaires. The responses were received on April 22, 2002.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) 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 the respondent, 
Sidmar, on April 25, 2002. In its request, Sidmar consented to the 
extension of provisional measures to no longer than six months.
    Since this preliminary determination is affirmative, the request 
for postponement is made by an exporter than accounts 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.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced) flat-rolled carbon-quality steel 
products. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, as 
well as a complete discussion of all scope exclusion requests submitted 
in the context of the on-going cold-rolled steel investigations, please 
see the ``Scope Appendix'' attached to the Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, published concurrently with 
this preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2000, through June 
30, 2001.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of cold-rolled steel from Belgium to the 
United States were made at LTFV, we compared the constructed export 
price (``CEP'') to the normal value (``NV''), as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we compared POI weighted-average CEPs to weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market during 
the POI that fit the description in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 
section of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared 
U.S. sales to sales made in the home market, 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 sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched 
foreign like products based on the physical

[[Page 31197]]

characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of 
importance: hardening and tempering; painted; carbon level; quality; 
yield strength; minimum thickness; thickness tolerance; width; edge 
finish; form; temper rolling; leveling; annealing; and surface finish.

Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used CEP in accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act because all sales to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser took place in the United States. Specifically, all of 
Sidmar's sales to the United States during the POI were made by its 
U.S. affiliates, TANY and J&F. Furthermore, some of Sidmar's CEP sales 
were further manufactured by J&F in the United States. For these sales 
we used the price to the first unaffiliated customer and deducted the 
costs of further manufacturing, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of 
the Act. To calculate further manufacturing costs, we used the 
information in Sidmar's Sections C and E responses, except in the 
following instances where the data were not properly quantified or 
valued: (1) we increased the reported further manufacturing costs to 
include freight from the port to the processor when determining profit 
and cost to be deducted from CEP. See Memorandum from Peter Scholl to 
Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, dated April 26, 2002, 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value (CV) Calculation Adjustments 
for the Preliminary Determination'' (``Cost Calculation Memorandum'').
    We based CEP on the packed CIF or delivered prices to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where appropriate, we 
reduced these prices to reflect discounts and rebates, and made billing 
adjustments.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties (including 
harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), and U.S. 
inland freight expenses (freight from warehouse to the customer and 
freight from port to warehouse).
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from 
the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling 
the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (cost of credit, warranties, and commissions paid to 
unaffiliated sales agents). In addition, we deducted indirect selling 
expenses that related to economic activity in the United States such as 
inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses, incurred 
by affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount 
for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. 
For further discussion, see the Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    We have excluded Sidmar sales of full-hard coils which were further 
annealed and skinpassed by its affiliated mill, LDD, in Luxembourg and 
then imported by its affiliated U.S. processor, J&F. Sidmar stated that 
it and J&F were unable to determine the appropriate product matching 
characteristics for sales of material processed by LDD because LDD does 
not have the same order management system used by Sidmar. With the 
plant order number, Sidmar determined the appropriate product matching 
characteristics for the imported coil based on mill production records. 
Because LDD does not have the same order management system, it is 
unable to link its production records to J&F invoices. Moreover, LDD 
does not have a reliable method for linking its own sales of further 
manufactured products to specific coils purchased from SIDMAR. 
Therefore, because these sales accounted for such a small portion of 
U.S. sales we excused Sidmar from reporting them. For further 
discussion, see the Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    For those U.S. sales for which Sidmar did not report a date of 
payment, we have used the signature date of the preliminary 
determination (i.e., April 26, 2002) in the calculation of imputed 
credit expenses. In addition, for the sales for which Sidmar did not 
report a date of shipment, we have used the invoice date for purposes 
of calculating credit expenses. For further discussion, see the Sales 
Calculation Memorandum.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. 
Because the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home market was viable for the respondent.

B. Arm's Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market 
which were determined not to be at arm's length were excluded from our 
analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we 
compared the prices of sales of comparison products to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, discounts, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in 
accordance with our practice, where the prices to the affiliated party 
were on average less than 99.5 percent of the prices to unaffiliated 
parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were 
not at arm's length. See e.g., Notice of Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Roller Chain, 
Other Than Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR at 60472, 60478 (November 10, 
1997), and Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule 
(``Antidumping Duties''), 62 FR at 27295, 27355-56 (May 19, 1997). We 
included in our NV calculations those sales to affiliated customers 
that passed the arm's length test in our analysis. See 19 CFR 351.403; 
Antidumping Duties, 62 FR at 27355-56.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of an allegation contained in the petition, 
we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales of cold-rolled steel in the home market were made at prices below 
their COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we 
initiated a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation to determine 
whether sales were made at prices below their respective COPs (see 
Initiation Notice, 66 FR at 54198).
2. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, plus an amount for general and administrative 
expenses (``G&A''), including interest expenses, and home market 
packing costs (see ``Test of Home Market Sales Prices'' section below 
for treatment of home market selling expenses). We relied on the COP 
information submitted by Sidmar with the exception of certain 
production inputs which were obtained from affiliated parties at less 
than market value. For these inputs, we adjusted the

[[Page 31198]]

reported cost to reflect market value. See the Cost Calculation 
Memorandum.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, 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 
the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any 
applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and 
indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home 
market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in 
accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such 
sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we 
determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POI are at prices less than the 
COP, we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent 
``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also 
determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Sidmar's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in 
addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used 
the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at 
arm's length. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting 
price for early payment discounts, billing adjustments, and rebates. We 
also made deductions for movement expenses, including inland freight 
(plant to distribution warehouse, plant/warehouse to customer, and 
affiliated reseller to customer), inland insurance, and warehousing 
under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We made circumstance of sale 
(``COS'') adjustments, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act, for direct selling expenses, including warranty expenses, 
credit expenses, and other direct selling expenses. See the Sales 
Calculation Memorandum.
    Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs 
attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act. Finally, for comparisons to CEP sales, we made a CEP offset 
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). See 
Level of Trade section below. We calculated the CEP offset as the 
lesser of the indirect selling expenses on the comparison-market sales 
or the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP. See the Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    We have excluded Sidmar's sales of non-prime merchandise in the 
home market for which Sidmar was unable to identify their product 
characteristics. These sales represented a small portion of Sidmar's 
home market sales. For further discussion, see the Sales Calculation 
Memorandum.

E. Normal Value Based on CV

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
those models of cold-rolled steel products for which we could not 
determine the NV based on comparison market sales, either because there 
were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable 
product failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. Section 773(e)(1) of 
the Act provides that the CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of 
material and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for 
selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, profit and 
U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of material and fabrication 
based on the methodology described in calculation of Cost of Production 
section, above. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred by Sidmar in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the comparison market. We used U.S. packing costs as described in the 
Constructed Export Price section above.
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Where 
we compared CV to CEP, we deducted from CV the weighted-average home 
market direct selling expenses and added U.S. selling expenses. Where 
appropriate we applied the CEP offset for price-to-CV comparisons, see 
the Level of Trade section below.

F. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) 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 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. With respect to U.S. price and CEP transactions, the LOT is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP, 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 
LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 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 at 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    Sidmar reported two customer categories (i.e., distributors and 
original equipment manufacturers) and five channels of distribution in 
the home market: (1) Sales made by Sidmar, through its affiliated sales 
agent Sidstahl Belgium, N.V. (``Sidstahl''), directly to unaffiliated 
distributors or end users (Channel 1); (2) sales made by Sidmar's 
affiliated producer Europese Staal Prefabricate, N.V. (``ESP'') 
directly to its

[[Page 31199]]

affiliated and unaffiliated distributors and unaffiliated end-users 
(Channel 2); (3) sales made by Sidmar, through its affiliated sales 
agent Sidstahl, as consignment sales, to unaffiliated end-users 
(Channel 3); (4) sales made by Sidmar to unaffiliated and affiliated 
end-users (Channel 4); (5) and sales made by Sidmar's affiliated 
producer ESP, as consignment sales, to unaffiliated end-users (Channel 
5).
    We determined that Sidmar sold merchandise at one LOT in the home 
market during the POI. The Department found minimal distinctions in the 
selling activities and associated expenses between Channels 1 through 
5. Based on these differences, we concluded that one LOT existed in the 
home market. Because the large number of channels of distribution and 
selling expenses involved in this analysis presents difficulty in 
providing an adequate summary in this notice, please see the Sales 
Calculation Memorandum for a detailed explanation of this issue.
    Sidmar reported two customer categories (i.e., original equipment 
manufacturers and service centers/distributors) and two channels of 
distribution in the United States: (1) CEP sales made by Sidmar, 
through its affiliated U.S. importer TANY, to unaffiliated service 
centers (Channel 6), and (2) CEP sales made by Sidmar, through its 
affiliated U.S. importer and further processor, J&F, to unaffiliated 
end users (Channel 7). We examined the selling functions performed by 
Sidmar on behalf of J&F and TANY and found only one level of trade.
    In order to determine whether separate LOTs actually existed 
between the U.S. and home market, we reviewed the selling activities 
associated with each channel of distribution. We determined that fewer 
and different selling functions were performed for Sidmar's CEP sales 
than for sales in the home market and these differences are 
substantial. We therefore determined that Sidmar's CEP sales and home 
market sales were made at different marketing stages and thus at 
different LOTs. Accordingly, we examined whether a LOT adjustment was 
appropriate. The Department makes this adjustment when it is 
demonstrated that a difference in LOTs affects price comparability. See 
section 773(a)(1) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.412(b). However, where the 
available data does not provide an appropriate basis upon which to 
determine a LOT adjustment, and where the NV is established at a LOT 
that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the 
CEP transactions, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 
(the CEP offset provision). Because the LOT of the U.S. sales is 
different than the home market LOT and there is no home market LOT 
comparable to that of the CEP sales, there is no reliable basis for 
quantifying a LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act. Further, we found that the home market sales were at a more 
advanced stage of distribution compared to sales to the U.S. LOT. 
Therefore, a CEP offset was applied to NV for the NV-CEP comparisons. 
Because the large number of channels of distribution and selling 
expenses involved in this analysis presents difficulty in providing an 
adequate summary in this notice, see the Sales Calculation Memorandum 
for a detailed explanation of our analysis.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all 
information relied upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of 
subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds the export price or constructed export 
price, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-
average dumping margin is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/Manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidmar, N.V................................................        11.66
All Others.................................................        11.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

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

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date of the final 
verification report issued in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be 
filed five days from the deadline date for case briefs. A list of 
authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of 
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. 
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including 
footnotes. Public versions of all comments and rebuttals should be 
provided to the Department and made available on diskette. Section 774 
of the Act provides that the Department will hold a public hearing to 
afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised 
in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested 
by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this 
investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the 
rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 
hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. 
Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 26, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-11184 Filed 5-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P