[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31251-31254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-401-807]


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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey Craig at (202) 482-4161 or 
Frank Thomson at (202) 482-4793, AD/CVD Enforcement Office VI, Group 
II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain cold-rolled carbon steel 
flat products (cold-rolled steel) from Sweden are being sold, or are 
likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), 
as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales 
at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this 
notice.

[[Page 31252]]

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. 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, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, 
Korea, 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 SSAB Svenskt Stal AB (SSAB).\2\ See Memorandum to 
Melissa Skinner, Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping 
Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Sweden (Respondent Selection Memo) (November 29, 2001). On December 7, 
2001, SSAB stated that it did not intend to participate in this 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 4, 2001, we received a letter from AB Sandvik Steel 
(Sandvik) requesting to participate in the cold-rolled investigation as 
a voluntary respondent. On December 7, 2001, we accepted Sandvik as a 
voluntary respondent. In letters dated December 12, 2001, and January 
3, 2002, we granted Sandvik extensions to respond to the questionnaire. 
We received Sandvik's Sections A, B, C and E questionnaire response on 
January 14, 2002. In a letter dated February 4, 2002, the petitioners 
requested that the Department commence a sales below cost investigation 
of cold-rolled steel manufactured by Sandvik.
    On February 6, 2002, Sandvik informed the Department that it was 
withdrawing its participation in this investigation and requested that 
we remove its proprietary information from the official record of this 
proceeding and return the information to Sandvik.
    On February 7, 2002, the petitioners requested a postponement of 
the preliminary determination in this investigation. On February 22, 
2002, the Department published a Federal Register notice postponing the 
deadline for the preliminary determination until 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), 67 FR 8227 (February 22, 2002).
    On April 11, 2002, we informed SSAB that failure to submit the 
requested information by the date specified might result in use of the 
facts available (FA) under section 776 of the Act and section 351.308 
of the Department's regulations.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act permits the Department to investigate either (1) a sample of 
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid 
based on the information available at the time of selection, or (2) 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the 
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. Using company-
specific export data for the period of investigation (POI), based on 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) number 
that corresponds to the subject merchandise, we obtained information 
from a variety of sources and found that sixteen producers/exporters 
may have exported cold-rolled steel to the United States during the 
POI. According to data on the record, SSAB represented a significantly 
large percent of the imports during the POI. Due to limited resources, 
we determined that we could only investigate this one largest producer/
exporter. See Respondent Selection Memo. Therefore, we designated SSAB 
as the mandatory respondent and sent it the antidumping questionnaire. 
On December 7, 2001, SSAB stated that it did not intend to participate 
in this investigation.

Period of Investigation

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

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: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, published concurrently with 
this preliminary determination.

Facts Available (FA)

1. Application of FA
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to 
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner 
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject 
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination.

[[Page 31253]]

    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following 
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    On November 16, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to SSAB. Section A was due on December 7, 2001, and 
Sections B-D were due on December 24, 2001. SSAB did not respond to the 
sections A, B, C, and D by the respective due dates, nor did the 
company request that the Department grant any extension of the 
deadlines to respond. On December 7, 2001, SSAB notified the Department 
that it did not intend to respond to the Department's questionnaire. In 
a letter dated April 11, 2002, we informed SSAB that failure to submit 
the requested information by the date specified might result in use of 
the FA under section 776 of the Act and section 351.308 of the 
Department's regulations. SSAB did not respond to the Department's 
requests for information at all.
    As described above, SSAB failed to provide a response to the 
Department's questionnaire despite the Department's repeated requests 
for information. Because SSAB failed to provide any of the necessary 
information requested by the Department and significantly impeded the 
proceeding, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, we 
have applied the FA to calculate the dumping margin.
    On December 7, 2001, we accepted Sandvik as a voluntary respondent. 
We note that 19 CFR 351.204(d)(2) of the Department's regulations 
states that ``A voluntary respondent accepted for individual 
examination under subparagraph (d)(1) of this section will be subject 
to the same requirements as an exporter or producer initially selected 
by the Secretary for individual examination under section 777A(c)(2) or 
section 777A(e)(2)(A) of the Act, including the requirements of section 
782(a) of the Act and, where applicable, the use of the facts available 
under section 776 of the Act and 351.308.''
    In letters dated December 12, 2001, and January 3, 2002, we granted 
Sandvik extensions to respond to the questionnaire. We received 
Sandvik's Sections A, B, C and E questionnaire response on January 14, 
2002. After submitting a questionnaire response, on February 6, 2002, 
Sandvik subsequently informed the Department that it was withdrawing 
its participation in this investigation and requested that we remove 
its proprietary information from the official record of this proceeding 
and return the information to Sandvik.
    As described above, Sandvik withdrew its participation in this 
investigation subsequent to being accepted as a voluntary respondent 
and its proprietary information has been taken off the official record 
of this proceeding. Thus, because Sandvik failed to provide the 
necessary information requested by the Department and significantly 
impeded the proceeding, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the 
Act, we have applied the FA to calculate the dumping margin.
2. Selection of Adverse FA (AFA)
    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 
From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997). SSAB was notified in the 
Department's questionnaire and in a separate letter that failure to 
submit the requested information by the date specified might result in 
use of the FA. Sandvik was also notified in the Department's 
questionnaire that failure to submit the requested information by the 
date specified might result in use of the FA. Moreover, SSAB and 
Sandvik failed to offer any alternative methods for submitting the 
requested information. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the 
Department to assume that SSAB and Sandvik possessed the records 
necessary for this investigation and that by not supplying the 
information the Department requested, SSAB and Sandvik failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability. As SSAB and Sandvik failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability, we are applying an adverse 
inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA, we have used 
40.54 percent, the rate derived from the petition. See Initiation 
Notice.
3. Corroboration of Information
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as AFA 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary 
information is defined as ``[i]nformation derived from the petition 
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See, Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-
316 at 870 (1994) and 19 CFR 351.308(d).
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value (see SAA at 870). The SAA also states that independent 
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation (see SAA at 870).
    In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the 
petition for use as AFA for purposes of this determination, we examined 
evidence supporting the calculations in the petition. We reviewed the 
adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our 
pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the extent appropriate 
information was available for this purpose (see Sweden Initiation 
Checklist (Initiation Checklist) on file in the Central Records Unit, 
Room B-099, of the Main Commerce Department building, for a discussion 
of the margin calculation in the petition.) In addition, in order to 
determine the probative value of the margin in the petition for use as 
AFA for purposes of this determination, we examined evidence supporting 
the calculation in the petition. In accordance with section 776(c) of 
the Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the 
export price (EP) and normal value (NV) calculations on which the 
margin in the petition was based.

Export Price

    With respect to the margin in the petition, EP was based on average 
per-unit customs import values (AUV) for the ten-digit category of the 
HTSUS accounting for a significant percentage of in-scope imports from 
Sweden during the POI and that is comparable to the product on which 
the normal value price quote information is based. Our review of the EP 
calculation indicated

[[Page 31254]]

that the information in the petition has probative value, as certain 
information (e.g., import statistics) included in the margin 
calculation in the petition is from public sources concurrent, for the 
most part, with the POI. We compared the export prices contained in the 
petition with U.S. Census values for the same HTSUS categories and 
found the export prices suggested in the petition to be reasonable and, 
therefore, corroborated for purposes of calculating a facts available 
margin. Export prices which are based on U.S. customs data are 
considered corroborated. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
64 FR 76, 84 (January 4, 1999) (Comment 13).

Normal Value

    The petitioners calculated NV from price information obtained from 
foreign market research for cold-rolled steel comparable to the 
products exported to the United States which serve as the basis for EP. 
The petitioners deducted freight cost from the home market price.
    The Department was provided with no useful information by the 
respondents or other interested parties and is aware of no other 
independent sources of information that would enable us to further 
corroborate the margin calculations in the petition.
    It is worth noting that the implementing regulation for section 776 
of the Act states, ``(t)he fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from 
applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using secondary 
information in question.'' See 19 CFR 351.308(c). Additionally, the SAA 
at 870 specifically states that where ``corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance,'' the Department need not prove 
that the facts available are the best alternative information.''
    Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate 
information contained in the petition, and in accordance with 776(c) of 
the Act, we consider the margins in the petitions to be corroborated to 
the extent practicable for purposes of this preliminary determination. 
Our findings are outlined below.
    Accordingly, in selecting AFA with respect to SSAB and Sandvik, the 
Department decided to apply the margin rate of 40.54 percent. See 
Initiation Notice.

All Others

    Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated 
weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and 
producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis, or are 
determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may 
use any reasonable method to establish the estimated ``all others'' 
rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this 
case, we have determined that the only reasonable method is to use the 
single margin alleged in the petition, which was also the source of our 
facts available margin for SSAB and Sandvik. Therefore, we applied the 
margin of 40.54 percent as the ``all others'' rate. See, e.g., Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from India, 64 FR 73126 
(December 29, 1999); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe from Mexico, 67 FR 
566, 567-68 (January 4, 2002).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled 
steel from Sweden that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We are also instructing the Customs Service to 
require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the dumping 
margin, as indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSAB Svenskt Stal AB.......................................        40.54
AB Sandvik Steel...........................................        40.54
All Others.................................................        40.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    Within five days of the date of publication of this notice, the 
Department will disclose its calculations to the parties to this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

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

Public Comment

    For the investigation of cold-rolled steel from Sweden, case briefs 
must be submitted no later than 50 days after the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register. Rebuttal briefs must be filed within 
five calendar days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. A 
list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary 
of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. 
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including 
footnotes. 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 hearing to afford 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in 
case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by 
any interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in an 
investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the 
deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, at the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230. 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 within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this 
investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination 
in the investigation of cold-rolled steel from Sweden no later than 75 
days after the date of this preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 26, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-11196 Filed 5-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P