[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31243-31248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11194]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-791-814]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products From South Africa

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Negative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain cold-rolled carbon 
steel flat products from South Africa are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in 
section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. In addition, we 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist for 
import of cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from South Africa.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minoo Hatten, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

[[Page 31244]]

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1690.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    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 the regulations codified at 19 
CFR part 351 (April 2001).

Background

    Since the initiation of this investigation (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'')), the following events have occurred.
    On November 13, 2001, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') preliminarily determined that there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of certain cold-rolled steel 
products from South Africa are materially injuring the United States 
industry (see Certain Cold-Rolled Steel 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 57985 (November 19, 2001)).
    On December 5, 2001, we selected the largest producer/exporter of 
cold-rolled steel from South Africa as a mandatory respondent in this 
proceeding. For further discussion, see the Memorandum to Laurie 
Parkhill, Director Office 3, from The Team regarding Selection of 
Respondents dated December 5, 2001. We issued the antidumping 
questionnaire to Iscor Limited (``Iscor'') on December 5, 2001.
    On December 7, 2001, the petitioners \1\ alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigations of cold-rolled carbon 
steel flat products from Argentina, Australia, China, India, the 
Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan. On December 
14, 2001, the petitioners supplemented their December 7, 2001, 
submission with additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in the concurrent antidumping duty 
investigations are Bethlehem Steel Corporation, LTV Steel Company, 
National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., 
United States Steel LLC, WCI Steel, Inc., and Weirton Steel 
Corporation. Weirton Steel Corporation is not a petitioner in the 
Netherlands case. Effective January 1, 2002, the party previously 
known as ``United States Steel LLC'' changed its name to ``United 
States Steel Corporation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the period January through April 2002, the Department 
received from Iscor responses to sections A, B, and C of the 
Department's original and supplemental questionnaires.
    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 14, 2002, and postponed the 
preliminary determination until no later than April 26, 2002 
(Postponement of Preliminary Determinations 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, 67 FR 8227 (February 22, 2002)).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because petitioners 
submitted the critical circumstances allegation more than twenty days 
before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the 
Department must issue the preliminary critical circumstances 
determination not later than the date of the preliminary determination. 
A full discussion of our analysis may be found in the critical 
circumstances section of this notice and in the critical circumstances 
memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Faryar Shirzad, dated April 26, 
2002 (Preliminary Negative Determinations of Critical Circumstances--
South Africa). A public version of this memorandum is on file at the 
Import Administration Central Records Unit, in Room B-099 of the 
Department of Commerce Building.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on April 23, 2002, Iscor 
requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register 
and extend the provisional measures to not more than six months. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e), because (1) our 
preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) Iscor accounts for a 
significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) 
no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting the 
respondent's request and are postponing the final determination until 
no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended 
accordingly.

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, 
please see the Scope Appendix attached to the Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final 
Determination and Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: 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 South Africa 
to the United States were made at less than fair value (``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 
POI 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 for U.S. sales. We compared 
U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise made in the home market. 
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

[[Page 31245]]

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 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.
    For this preliminary determination, we did not use certain home-
market sales reported by Iscor because it did not indicate the quality 
or yield strength for the products involved in these transactions and 
reported zero in the quality and yield strength fields. As a result, in 
the product-comparison portion of the margin program we generated 
missing values. In its April 8, 2002, supplemental response at pages 11 
and 12, Iscor stated that it reported zero because for some orders 
customers did not specify a quality or yield strength for the 
merchandise ordered and Iscor did not keep a record of this 
information. We intend to examine this matter in detail at 
verification.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
all sales to the United States because Iscor sells all the merchandise 
under investigation to the United States through an affiliated company 
in the United States, MacSteel International USA Corp.
    We based CEP on the FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made adjustments for billing adjustments. We also 
made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these deductions included, where appropriate, 
domestic inland freight (i.e., inland freight expense from plant/
warehouse to port of exit), ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
brokerage and handling, U.S. customs duties, U.S. wharfage fees, U.S. 
survey fees, U.S. inland freight expenses (i.e., freight from port to 
warehouse), and warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling 
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (e.g., imputed credit costs) 
and indirect selling expenses (e.g., inventory carrying costs).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Iscor and its affiliate on their sales of the 
subject merchandise in the United States and the foreign like product 
in the home market and the profit associated with those sales. See 
Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum for Iscor.
    We used Iscor's reported constructed value (CV) data to calculate 
the CEP profit amount. In our original questionnaire dated December 5, 
2001, we requested that Iscor respond to the CV portion of section D 
with respect to products or models sold in the United States for which 
it had no sales of comparable merchandise in the home or third-country 
market. As Iscor did not respond to the CV section of the section D, we 
repeated the request in a supplemental questionnaire. In response to 
the supplemental questionnaire, Iscor provided a response to the CV 
portion of the section D questionnaire. Because CV data was on the 
record and it is the Department's normal practice to use CV data to 
calculate the CEP profit amount when it is available, we used this data 
to calculate the CEP profit amount. By using CV data we are able to 
calculate a profit amount which is more specific to the merchandise 
under investigation than relying on a profit amount derived from the 
financial statements which could cover a broader range of merchandise. 
In using Iscor's CV data, we found that Iscor did not provide CV data 
for all of its U.S. products. Therefore, for this preliminary 
determination, and pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, as facts 
available, we extracted the cost information available in the U.S. 
database and information provided in the CV portion of section D 
response to derive the CV for these sales. Prior to our final 
determination, we will require Iscor to provide the CV data for the 
products for which we currently have no CV data so that we can include 
this data in our calculations for the final determination.
    For this preliminary determination we have not included certain 
expense amounts reported in the U.S. miscellaneous-expense field. In 
its section C questionnaire response Iscor reported certain expense 
amounts in the U.S. miscellaneous-expenses field. However, it did not 
clearly identify the nature of these expenses. In its response to our 
supplemental questionnaire, Iscor stated that this field is primarily 
comprised of brokerage fees. However, it did not provide an adequate 
explanation for the negative amounts reported in this field. Since 
Iscor did not demonstrate that it was entitled to receive this upward 
adjustment to U.S. price (i.e., deducting the negative numbers reported 
in movement expense resulted in an increase in U.S. price for certain 
transactions) for this preliminary determination, we did not use the 
negative amounts reported in this field. However, because Iscor 
provided adequate information with regard to the positive values 
reported in this field, we used the positive amounts reported in this 
field. See Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum for Iscor.
    On December 21, 2001, Iscor requested that the Department permit it 
to exclude from its response to the questionnaire an insignificant 
quantity of sales which its U.S. affiliate sold to its affiliated 
customer in the U.S. market as well as that affiliated customer's sales 
to its unaffiliated customers. The affiliated customer added value to 
some of the merchandise prior to resale. Iscor stated that providing 
sales and further-manufacturing data for such an insignificant quantity 
of sales would be disproportionately burdensome without having any 
meaningful effect on the calculation of the dumping margin. Consistent 
with our past practice, because the volume of these sales was small and 
would have a negligible impact upon the margin calculation, we granted 
Iscor's request. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From 
Japan, 64 FR 8291, 8295 (February 19, 1999) (unchanged in the final 
determination). In our letter granting the request, however, we 
informed Iscor that this assertion is subject to verification.

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)(C) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.405(2). 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.

[[Page 31246]]

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 412(c)(2)(2001). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
    In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the ``chain of 
distribution''),\2\ including selling functions,\3\ class of customer 
(``customer category''), and the level of selling expenses for each 
type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The marketing process in the United States and comparison 
markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the 
final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two 
may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur 
somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we 
considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly 
determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to 
occur.
    \3\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of this preliminary determination, 
we have organized the common cold-rolled carbon steel-flat product 
selling functions into four major categories: sales process and 
marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, 
and quality assurance/warranty services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison-market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either home-market or third-country prices), we consider the starting 
prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the 
selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 
March 7, 2001).
    When the Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like 
product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 
Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the 
comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we 
make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if a NV level of trade is more remote from the 
factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether 
the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affected price comparability 
(i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department will grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    We obtained information from Iscor regarding the marketing stages 
involved in making the reported home-market and U.S. sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for 
each channel of distribution. Iscor's LOT findings are summarized 
below.
    Iscor reported one channel of distribution in the home market with 
two customer categories, merchants (which included distributors, 
processors and service centers) and end-users. The selling activities 
associated with all sales were similar (e.g., freight and delivery 
arrangements, order processing, inventory management, after-sales 
service, and quality assurance) and, based on our analysis of the 
selling activities, we preliminarily determine that the reported single 
home-market channel of distribution constitutes one LOT. Iscor reported 
one channel of distribution in the U.S. market, represented by its CEP 
sales. Iscor's CEP level of trade was its sales to its affiliated 
reseller. After making deductions pursuant to section 772(d) of the 
Act, we found that the selling functions performed by Iscor at the CEP 
level (e.g., freight and delivery arrangements, order processing, 
inventory management, after-sales service and quality assurance) were 
not sufficiently different from the selling functions performed at the 
home-market LOT (e.g., freight and delivery arrangements, order 
processing, inventory management, after-sales service, and quality 
assurance) to consider the home-market LOT to be different and at a 
more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT. Because the sole 
home-market LOT was not different from the CEP LOT we did not make a 
LOT adjustment.
    Although Iscor claimed a CEP-offset adjustment to NV, because we 
found the CEP LOT to be similar to the home-market LOT we made no CEP-
offset adjustment.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ``free on rail ex-works'' prices to 
unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the 
starting price for billing adjustments, interest revenue, rebates, and 
early-payment discounts. We also made deductions for movement expenses 
(i.e., inland freight expense from plant/warehouse to customer) under 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments 
under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for 
differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses.
    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.

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.

Critical Circumstances

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department 
will preliminarily 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 
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, 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(2) 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)

[[Page 31247]]

and ending at least three months later. This section provides further 
that, if the Department ``finds that 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 Department 
may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier 
time.
    In determining whether the above statutory criteria have been 
satisfied, we examined the following information: (1) The evidence 
presented in the petitioners' submissions of December 7, 2001, and 
January 14, 2002; (2) new evidence obtained since the initiation of the 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations (i.e., additional import 
statistics released by the Census Bureau); and (3) the International 
Trade Commission's (ITC) affirmative preliminary injury determination 
(see Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Argentina, Australia, 
Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, 
Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, 
Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela, International Trade Commission 
Investigations Nos. 701-TA-422-425 and 731-TA-964-983 Preliminary 
Determination, 66 FR 57985 (November 19, 2001)).

History of Dumping

    In determining whether a history of dumping and material injury 
exists, the Department generally considers current or recent 
antidumping duty orders on the subject merchandise from the country in 
question in the United States and current orders in any other country. 
See 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) (Carbon and 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod). Because we are not aware of any existing 
antidumping order in any country on cold-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from South Africa, we do not find a history of dumping from 
South Africa, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. However, 
the Department may look to the second criterion for determining whether 
importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling subject 
merchandise from South Africa at LTFV prices.

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 cold-rolled steel at less than fair value, the Department 
normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price (EP) 
sales and 15 percent or more for CEP sales sufficient to impute 
importer knowledge of sales at LTFV. See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire 
Rod, 67 FR 6224, 6225.
    The Department normally bases its decision with respect to 
knowledge on the margins determined in the preliminary determination. 
Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination of critical 
circumstances, we are relying on the margin calculated for Iscor for 
this preliminary determination. Because this margin is greater than 15 
percent (see ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section below), in the case 
of South Africa, which has CEP sales, we find that there is a 
reasonable basis to impute knowledge of dumping with respect to imports 
from South Africa.

Material Injury

    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the 
Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination 
of the ITC. If the ITC 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 
that material injury is likely 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 this case, the ITC preliminarily found 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 subject merchandise from South Africa. See Determinations 
and Views of the Commission, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-422-425 and 
731-TA-964-983, Publication 3471 (November 2001) (ITC Determination). 
Due to the ITC's finding of material injury, we preliminarily determine 
that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that importers 
knew or should have known that imports of cold-rolled steel from South 
Africa were likely to cause material injury.

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 19 CFR 351.206(i), ``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. We used company-specific shipment data and determined that 
there were not massive imports either for Iscor or for ``all others.'' 
For a detailed analysis, see the memorandum from Richard Moreland to 
Faryar Shirzad, dated April 26, 2002 (Preliminary Negative 
Determinations of Critical Circumstances--South Africa).

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 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 CEP, as indicated in the chart 
below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in 
effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iscor......................................................        43.32
All Others.................................................   \1\ 43.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As Iscor was the only respondent that we used in our calculations,
  we used Iscor's margin as the all-others rate.

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, 
pursuant to section 735(b)(2) of the Act, 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

[[Page 31248]]

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. 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 three days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, D.C. 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 the following information: (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.
    This determination is 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. 02-11194 Filed 5-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P