[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31261-31264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11198]



[[Page 31261]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-819]


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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Flannery at (202) 482-3020, 
Matthew Renkey at (202) 482-2312, or Elfi Blum at (202) 482-0197, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, 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 Thailand 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.

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 occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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).
    Based on our analysis of an allegation contained in the petition, 
we found at the initiation of this investigation that there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent's sales of 
the subject merchandise in its comparison market were made at prices 
below its cost of production (COP). Accordingly, pursuant to section 
773(b) of the Act, we initiated a country-wide sales-below-cost 
investigation. See Initiation Notice.
    On November 19, 2001, the Department issued Sections A-E of its 
antidumping duty questionnaire to Thai Cold Rolled Steel Sheet Public 
Company Limited (TCR). Additionally, the Department issued a request to 
the Embassy of Thailand for information regarding the quantity and 
value of sales of subject merchandise to the United States for all 
known producers/exporters of subject merchandise in Thailand. The 
Department received a request from TCR for an extension to file Section 
A on December 4, 2001, and the Department granted an extension of the 
deadline for submitting the response to Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire until noon December 17, 2001.
    On December 11, 2001, the Department determined that TCR would be 
the only mandatory respondent in this investigation. Refer to Selection 
of Respondents section below. On December 17, 2001, the Department 
received TCR's response to Section A of the questionnaire. On December 
19, 2001, TCR requested an extension to file its responses to Sections 
B through E, and the Department granted an extension of the deadline 
for submitting its response to the Department's questionnaire until 
noon, January 17, 2002. The Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire regarding TCR's Section A response on December 21, 2001. 
TCR requested, and the Department granted an extension to file the 
response to the supplemental Section A questionnaire until January 11, 
2002. On January 17, 2002, six days after the filing deadline for the 
response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire to Section A, 
and the extended due date for its responses to Sections B through E, 
TCR informed the Department that it had decided not to respond to 
continued requests for information or participate in verification in 
this antidumping investigation.
    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 
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).

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 be reasonably examined. Using import data 
from the U.S. Customs Service, we found multiple exporters of cold-
rolled steel to the United States during the period of investigation 
(POI). According to this data, TCR, together with its affiliated 
trading company, accounted for significantly more than 60 percent of 
all known exports of the subject merchandise during the POI from 
Thailand. Due to limited resources,

[[Page 31262]]

we determined that we could only investigate the largest producer/
exporter. Therefore, we designated TCR as the only mandatory 
respondent. See the memorandum entitled Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand--Respondent 
Selection (December 11, 2001) (Respondent Selection Memo).

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, 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.

Facts Available (FA)

1. Application of FA

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested subject to section 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statue; or 
(D) provides such information but the information 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.
    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 19, 2001, the Department issued sections A-E of its 
antidumping duty questionnaire to TCR. The Department received a 
request for an extension to file Section A on December 4, 2001, and the 
Department granted an extension of the deadline for submitting its 
response to the Department's questionnaire until December 17, 2001. On 
December 19, 2001, TCR requested an extension to file its responses to 
Sections B through E, and the Department granted an extension of the 
deadline for submitting its response to the Department's questionnaire 
until January 17, 2002. The Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire regarding TCR's Section A response on December 21, 2001. 
TCR requested, and the Department granted, an extension to file the 
response to the supplemental Section A questionnaire until January 11, 
2002. As stated in the Respondent Selection Memo, the Department found 
that TCR was the largest producer/exporter of the subject merchandise 
and, therefore, designated it as the sole mandatory respondent. See 
Respondent Selection Memo. In addition, the Department informed TCR 
that it would attempt to accommodate any difficulties it had in 
answering the questionnaire. The Department also informed TCR that 
failure to submit the requested information by the date specified might 
result in use of FA.
    Although we informed TCR that we would attempt to accommodate any 
difficulties it had in answering the questionnaire, and granted its 
three extension requests, TCR only responded to Section A of the 
Department's questionnaire. TCR made no additional contact with the 
Department to request further extensions, or to suggest any alternative 
methods of providing the requested information that would accommodate 
any difficulties it might have experienced, or expected to experience, 
in responding to the questionnaires.
    On January 17, 2002, six days after the filing deadline for the 
response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire to Section A, 
and the extended due date for its responses to Sections B through E, 
TCR informed the Department that it had decided not to respond to 
continued requests for information or participate in verification in 
this antidumping investigation. On March 6, 2002, petitioners submitted 
comments highlighting TCR's failure to submit information requested by 
the Department. As adverse FA (AFA), petitioners suggested that we 
apply the highest margin from the original petition, 150.26 percent. 
Alternatively, petitioners suggested that the Department apply the 
highest rate from the Initiation Notice, 142.78 percent, which was 
based on petitioners' October 12, 2001 amendment to the petition.
    As described above, TCR failed to provide a full response to the 
Department's questionnaires despite the Department's willingness to 
accommodate its difficulties. Because TCR failed to provide the 
necessary information requested by the Department, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we have applied FA to determine its dumping 
margin.

2. Selection of 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). TCR was notified twice in the 
Department's questionnaires that failure to submit the requested 
information by the date specified might result in the use of FA. As 
described above, prior to withdrawing, TCR failed to contact the 
Department to express any difficulties it might have been experiencing 
or to suggest how we might accommodate it in overcoming these 
difficulties, with the exception of its three extension requests, which 
we granted. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the Department to 
assume that TCR possessed the records necessary for this investigation, 
and that by not supplying the information requested, it failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability. Since TCR failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability, we are applying an adverse inference pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA, we have used 142.78 percent, the 
highest rate at which we initiated. See Initiation Notice.

3. Corroboration of AFA 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

[[Page 31263]]

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 Thailand Initiation 
Checklist on file in the Central Records Unit (Initiation Checklist), 
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 
margins in the petition were based.
a. Export Price
    With respect to the margins in the petition, EP was based on 
average per-unit customs import values (AUV) for the two ten-digit 
categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) accounting for a significant percentage of in-scope imports 
from Thailand during the POI. Our review of the EP calculation 
indicated that the information in the petition has probative value, as 
certain information (e.g., import statistics) included in the margin 
calculations in the petition is from public sources concurrent with the 
POI. 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).
b. Normal Value
    The petitioners calculated NV from price information obtained from 
foreign market research for cold-rolled steel comparable to the 
products used as the basis for EP. The petitioners made no adjustments 
to NV.
    With respect to NV, the petitioners also provided information 
demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
cold-rolled carbon steel flat products in the home market were made at 
prices below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, 
and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-
cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP 
consists of cost of manufacture (COM), selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated 
COM based on their own production experience, adjusted for known 
differences between costs incurred to produce cold-rolled carbon steel 
flat products in the United States and Thailand using publicly 
available data. To calculate SG&A and interest, the petitioners relied 
upon amounts reported in TCR's 1999 financial statements. Because the 
Thai home market price of cold-rolled steel products in the petition 
was below the COP, the petitioners also based NV for sales in Thailand 
on constructed value (CV), pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 
773(e) of the Act. The petitioners calculated CV using the same COM, 
SG&A and interest expense figures used to compute Thai home market 
costs, and included in CV an amount for profit. For profit, the 
petitioners relied upon amounts reported in TCR's 1999 financial 
statements. See Initiation Checklist.
    With respect to the CV data, we were able to corroborate the 
reasonableness of these data by examining the financial statements used 
to calculate COP and the petitioners' own information about the cost of 
transforming the hot-rolled coil into subject merchandise. With respect 
to the petitioners' own information regarding the cost of transforming 
the hot-rolled coil into subject merchandise, we corroborated the 
information by tracing the surrogate factors and values to the 
certification provided by the U.S. surrogate. Where applicable, we 
corroborated petitioners' own information adjusted for known 
differences with publicly available data. With regard to the CV 
contained in the petition, the Department was provided no useful 
information by the respondent 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.
    Accordingly, in selecting AFA with respect to TCR, the Department 
decided to apply the CV margin rate of 142.78 percent, which is the 
highest estimated dumping margin calculated by the petitioners in the 
amendment to the petition of this investigation. 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. Our 
recent practice under these circumstances has been to assign, as the 
``All Others'' rate, the simple average of the margins in the petition. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Canada (Plate from Canada), 64 FR 
15457 (March 31, 1999); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Italy (Plate from 
Italy), 64 FR 15458, 15459 (March 21, 1999). For purposes of this 
preliminary determination, we are basing the ``All Others'' rate on the 
simple average of margins for certain products under investigation at 
which we initiated, which is 127.44 percent.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
cold-rolled steel exported from Thailand 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 Customs 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thai Cold-Rolled Steel Sheet Public Company, Limited.......       142.78
All Others.................................................       127.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days

[[Page 31264]]

of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of the 
proceedings in these investigations 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 threatening 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

    Unless otherwise directed by the Department, 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 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 an 
interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this 
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 location 
of the hearing 48 hours prior to 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 certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from Thailand 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. 02-11198 Filed 5-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P