[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31273-31278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11201]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-307-822]


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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Catherine Bertrand, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3434 and (202) 482-3207, 
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

[[Page 31274]]

made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In 
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that certain cold-rolled carbon steel 
flat products (``cold-rolled steel) from Venezuela are being, 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. 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) (``Notice of Initiation''). The Department set aside 
a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. See Notice of Initiation, at 66 FR 54204.
    On October 31, 2001, the Department requested comments from 
petitioners and other interested parties regarding the criteria to be 
used for model matching purposes. On November 8, 2001, petitioners 
submitted comments on our proposed model matching criteria. On November 
19, 2001, the United States International Trade Commission (``ITC'') 
notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury 
determination in this case. 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 19, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Siderurgica del Orinoco C.A. (``Sidor''). On December 
17, 2001, Sidor submitted its response to section A of the 
questionnaire. Petitioners filed comments on Sidor's section A response 
on January 7, 2002. We issued a supplemental questionnaire for section 
A on January 24, 2002. Sidor submitted sections B and C response on 
January 22, 2002. Petitioners filed comments on Sidor's sections B and 
C response on February 6, 2002. We issued Sidor a supplemental 
questionnaire for sections B and C on February 13, 2002. On February 
25, 2002, petitioners submitted supplemental section A comments. On 
February 27, 2002, the Department issued a second supplemental section 
A questionnaire. On March 13, 2002, Sidor submitted its second 
supplemental section A response. On March 1, 2002, and March 11, 2002, 
Sidor submitted its supplemental sections B and C responses. On April 
1, 2002, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section 
A, B and C. Sidor submitted its response on April 11, 2002, and April 
15, 2002.
    On February 7, 2002, petitioners made a timely request for a fifty-
day postponement of the preliminary determination pursuant to section 
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The Department determined that these 
concurrent investigations warranted the fifty-day postponement 
requested by petitioners. On February 14, 2002, we postponed 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, Australia, 
Belgium, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, 
India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South 
Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela, 67 FR 
8227 (February 22, 2002).
    On March 14, 2002, petitioners submitted a sales below cost 
allegation. The Department concluded that a reasonable basis exists to 
believe or suspect that sales in the home market have been made at 
prices below the cost of production. On March 21, 2002, the Department 
initiated a sales below cost investigation. See Memorandum to Edward 
Yang dated March 21, 2002, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Venezuela: Analysis of 
Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for 
Siderurgica del Orinoco C.A. (``Allegation of Sales Below Cost''). On 
March 22, 2002, the Department instructed Sidor to respond to section D 
of the questionnaire. On April 5, 2002, Sidor submitted its section D 
response. On April 9, 2002, petitioners submitted their preliminary 
determination comments for sections A through C.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on April 18, 2002, Sidor 
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), because (1) our preliminary 
determination is affirmative, (2) Sidor 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.

Period of Investigation

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

Scope of the 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.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of cold-rolled steel from Venezuela to 
the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the 
export price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to the 
normal value (``NV''), as described in the ``export price and 
constructed export price'' and ``normal value'' sections of this 
notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we calculated weighted-average EPs and CEPs for comparison to weighted-
average NVs.

Date of Sale

    For its home market and U.S. sales, Sidor reported the date of 
invoice as the date of sale, in keeping with the Department's stated 
preference for using the invoice date as the date of sale. Sidor stated 
that the invoice date best reflects the date on which the material 
terms of sale are established and that

[[Page 31275]]

price and/or quantity may change between order date and invoice date. 
See Sidor's section B and C response dated January 22, 2002, at B-11 
and C-11.
    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the 
Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale. The preamble to the Final Rules (the 
``Preamble'') provides an explanation of this policy and examples of 
when the Department may choose to base the date of sale on a date other 
than the date of invoice. See 62 FR at 27348-49 (May 19, 1997). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), where appropriate, we based date of 
sale on invoice dates recorded in the ordinary course of business by 
the involved sellers of the subject merchandise. However, we intend to 
fully verify information concerning respondent's claims that invoice 
date is the appropriate date of sale. Based on the outcome of our 
verification, we will determine whether it is appropriate to continue 
to use the date of invoice as the date of sale. We will consider, among 
other things, whether, in fact, there were any changes to the material 
contract terms between the original order confirmation and the date of 
invoice. See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not 
Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 
21319 (April 30, 2001).

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Investigation'' section above, and sold in the home 
market during the POI, to be foreign like products for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared 
U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market 
made in the ordinary course of trade, where possible. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade. To determine the 
appropriate product comparisons, we compared the following physical 
characteristics of the products in 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.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Where Sidor sold merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act, because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or 
producer outside the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States. We based EP on the packed price to 
the unaffiliated customer in the United States (the starting price). We 
made adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments where 
applicable. We deducted from the starting price, where applicable, 
amounts for discounts and rebates. In addition, we deducted movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, where 
appropriate. In this case, movement expenses include international 
freight, brokerage and handling charges, marine insurance, U.S. duties, 
and U.S. inland freight.
    We calculated CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b) of the 
Act, for those sales made by Siderca Corporation, Sidor's U.S. 
affiliate, to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We 
based CEP on the packed, delivered, duty paid or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments to 
the starting price for billing adjustments where applicable. Where 
appropriate, we made deductions for discounts. We also made deductions 
for the following movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act: international freight; marine insurance; U.S. 
Customs duties; brokerage and handling; and U.S. inland freight from 
port to warehouse. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 
deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses 
(credit and warranty expenses), inventory carrying costs, and other 
indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    We recalculated the U.S. credit expense for EP sales, because Sidor 
reported it had no U.S. borrowings during the POI. In the event 
respondent has no U.S. borrowing, the Department's practice is to use a 
U.S. published commercial bank prime short-term lending rate. See 
Import Administration Policy Bulletin: Imputed Credit Expenses and 
Interest Rates (February 23, 1998). In recalculating the short-term 
interest rate, we used the weighted-average effective loan rate for 
commercial and industrial loans during the POI as reported by the U.S. 
Federal Reserve statistical release.
    The Department is denying Sidor's claim for duty drawback for this 
preliminary determination because the reported duty drawback was not 
directly linked to the amount of duty paid on imports used in the 
production of merchandise for export as required by the Department's 
two-part test. The two-prong test which the Department considers when 
deciding whether to grant a duty drawback adjustment is whether the: 
(1) Import duty and rebate are directly linked to, and dependent upon, 
one another; and (2) company claiming the adjustment can show that 
there were sufficient imports of the imported raw materials to account 
for the drawback received on the exported product. See Rajinder Pipes 
Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999).
    In our analysis of Sidor's duty drawback information, we found that 
Sidor did not provide sufficient evidence on the record to demonstrate 
that a direct link existed between the import duties paid and the 
amount rebated upon exportation of the subject merchandise. We issued 
Sidor the original section B and C questionnaire, followed by two 
supplemental questionnaires, and the information on the record is still 
unclear and insufficient for these reasons. First, the respondent 
provided a chart of the inputs it imported during the POI that were 
used in the production of cold-rolled steel: however this chart was not 
translated into English, and therefore not readable. See Sidor's second 
supplemental B and C response dated April 11, 2002 at Exhibit 11. 
Second, the Venezuelan regulations, that the Department requested Sidor 
to provide, were also not fully translated into English as required by 
19 CFR 351.303(e). The company provided only one page of English 
translation for approximately fifty pages of Spanish text, and the 
translated portion was not sufficient to establish the necessary link. 
See Sidor's second supplemental B and C response dated April 11, 2002 
at Exhibit 10. Third, we are also unable to tell if the respondent had 
a sufficient quantity of imports of the inputs in question to account 
for the duty drawback upon exportation of cold-rolled, as the 
information on the record was not translated. The Department intends to 
fully examine this issue at verification, and may reconsider its 
position for the final determination based on the results of 
verification.

[[Page 31276]]

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV Comparison'' sections of this 
notice.
A. Home Market Viability
    To determine whether there was 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 was 
equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared Sidor's volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 
Because Sidor'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 of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home 
market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in 
the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
    Based on the information contained in a timely filed cost 
allegation by the petitioners on March 14, 2002, the Department found 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Sidor's sales of the 
foreign like product in their respective comparison markets were made 
at prices below the cost of production (``COP''), pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated a country-
wide sales-below-cost investigation. See Allegation of Sales Below 
Cost.
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of Sidor's cost of materials and fabrication for the 
foreign like product, an amount for selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A'') based on actual data pertaining to 
production and sales of the foreign like product by the exporter in 
question, interest expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP 
data submitted by Sidor in its section D cost questionnaire response, 
except as noted below.
    1. We revised Sidor's G&A rate to be based on the fiscal year costs 
and not the POI costs, as reported.
    2. We revised respondent's financial expense rate to also be based 
on fiscal year costs and not on POI costs, as reported. See Memorandum 
from Gina K. Lee to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 
dated April 26, 2002, Re: Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Adjustments for Preliminary Determination.
2. Test of Home Market Prices
    On a product specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
figures for Sidor to home market sales prices of the foreign like 
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether sales had been made at prices below their COPs. In 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less 
than the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended period of 
time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) the 
below-cost prices would permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time. We compared COP to home market prices, less 
any applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, and direct and 
indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices 
below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were made at 
prices below the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in 
``substantial quantities'' pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) within 
an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of 
the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to weighted-average 
COPs for the POI, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, 
we disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific 
product were made at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of 
that product. For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which 
there were no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of 
trade, we compared the EP/CEP to CV in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act.
C. Calculation of Constructed Value
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Sidor's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
including interest expenses, profit, and packing. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by Sidor in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade for consumption in Venezuela. For CV, we made the same 
adjustments described in the COP section above.
D. Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We calculated NV for Sidor on prices of home market sales that 
passed the cost test. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, 
discounts and rebates, where appropriate. Also, we made deductions, 
where appropriate, for inland freight and inland toll expenses pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments 
for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, as well as for differences in 
circumstances of sale (``COS'') in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments, where appropriate, for imputed credit, warranty expenses, 
and technical expenses. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs 
and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) 
and (B) of the Act. We recalculated credit expenses for those sales 
with missing payment date because payment has not yet been made. For 
sales with missing payment dates, the Department set the date of 
payment as the projected preliminary determination date. For further 
explanation, see Analysis Memorandum from Catherine Bertrand to The 
File, dated April 26, 2002.
    We have analyzed Sidor's claim for other discounts. We issued Sidor 
the original section B and C questionnaire, followed by two 
supplemental questionnaires, and the information on the record is still 
unclear and insufficient to determine if there were discounts 
appropriately granted because discounts were granted substantially 
after invoicing had occurred. See Department's questionnaire to Sidor 
on November 19, 2001, and Department's supplemental questionnaires to 
Sidor on February 13, 2002 and April 1, 2002. Sidor stated that in the 
database field ``other discounts'' it reported data for two types of 
commercial discounts: (1) Commercial discounts, pursuant to agreements 
with certain clients, in which a credit note is issued after the 
merchandise has been shipped and invoiced and is based on commercial 
consideration; and (2) price adjustments which are either credit notes 
or debit notes correcting pricing errors in their sales orders. See 
Sidor's second

[[Page 31277]]

supplemental B and C response dated April 11, 2002 at 4-5. As both of 
these discounts are reported in the same field, it is not possible to 
tell which type of discount is involved for each sale. Also, Sidor did 
not provide a copy of the agreements on which the first type of 
discounts is based. Furthermore, Sidor also did not fully explain the 
term ``commercial consideration'' which is the reason Sidor provided 
for granting the commercial discount. Therefore, because the 
information on the record to date is unclear and insufficient for the 
Department to determine what type of discount, if any, was granted, the 
Department is denying this discount for the preliminarily 
determination. The Department intends to fully examine this issue at 
verification, and may reconsider its position for the final 
determination based on the results of verification.

E. Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
when we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar 
merchandise. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. For comparisons to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting the weighted average home market selling 
expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. Where we compared CV 
to CEP, we deducted from CV the average home market direct selling 
expenses.

F. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 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 EP or CEP 
transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting price comparison sales 
in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from 
which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP, the LOT is also the 
level of the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to 
the importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a 
different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the unaffiliated customer in the comparison market. 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 differences in 
the levels between NV and CEP sales affects price comparability, we 
adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset 
provision). See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South 
Africa, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In this investigation, Sidor did not request a level-of-trade 
adjustment. To ensure that no such adjustment was necessary, in 
accordance with principles discussed above, we examined information 
regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and 
Venezuelan markets, including the selling functions, classes of 
customers and selling expenses for Sidor. See Memorandum to Edward 
Yang, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from Venezuela: Level of Trade Analysis (April 26, 
2002) (``Level of Trade Memorandum''). For its home market sales, Sidor 
reported two channels of distribution--to unaffiliated end users and to 
unaffiliated distributors. In reviewing Sidor's LOT in the home market, 
we asked Sidor to identify the specific differences and similarities in 
selling functions and/or support services between all channels of 
distribution in the home market and the United States. Sidor reported 
that it undertakes different levels of selling functions depending on 
whether its home market sales are made to distributors or end users. 
See Level of Trade Memorandum. Because the selling activities engaged 
in by Sidor differ significantly by channel of distribution, we 
preliminarily determine that two levels of trade exist for Sidor's home 
market sales. See Level of Trade Memorandum.
    For its U.S. sales, Sidor also reported two channels of 
distribution. Sidor sold directly to unaffiliated trading companies and 
also made sales through Siderca Corporation, an affiliated U.S. 
company, which then sold to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States. We examined the claimed selling functions performed by Sidor 
for all U.S. sales. For sales made directly to the unaffiliated U.S. 
customer (EP sales), Sidor performed the same selling functions that it 
provided for sales made to Siderica Corporation. Sidor provided the 
same level of the following services for both EP and CEP sales in the 
U.S.: technical advice and services, visits to customers, solicitation 
of customer orders, market research, advertising, freight and delivery 
arrangements and packing.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a different LOT 
than CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chains of distribution between Sidor and its home 
market customers. We compared the selling functions performed for home 
market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP transaction, 
after deductions for economic activities occurring in the United 
States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, to determine if the home 
market levels of trade constituted more advanced stages of distribution 
than the CEP level of trade. Sidor requested a CEP offset in this 
investigation. Sidor reported that it provided virtually no selling 
functions for the CEP level of trade and that, therefore, the two home 
market levels of trade are more advanced than the CEP level of trade. 
To determine whether a CEP offset was necessary, in accordance with the 
principles discussed above, we examined information regarding the 
distribution systems in both the United States and Venezuelan markets, 
including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling 
expenses.
    Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and selling 
functions performed for sales in the home market and CEP sales in the 
U.S. market, we preliminarily find that both home market LOTs were at a 
more advanced stage of distribution when compared to respondent's CEP 
sales. See Level of Trade Memorandum. We were unable to quantify the 
LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, as 
we found that neither of the LOTs in the home market matched the LOT of 
the CEP transactions. Accordingly, we did not calculate a LOT 
adjustment. Instead, we applied a CEP offset to the NV for CEP 
comparisons. To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home market 
indirect selling expenses from normal value for home market sales that 
were compared to U.S. CEP sales. We therefore limited the home market 
indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect 
selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP as required under 
section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
    We are unable to make a LOT adjustment for EP sales because Sidor 
does not sell the subject merchandise in the home market at the same 
LOT as that of its EP sales, and there is no data on the record that 
would allow the Department to establish whether there is a pattern of 
consistent price differences

[[Page 31278]]

between sales at different levels of trade in the comparison market. 
Therefore, and LOT adjustment is not possible for comparisons of EP 
sales to home market sales.
Currency Conversion
    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the 
Act.
Verification
    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all 
information relied upon in making our final determination.
The All Others Rate
    Because the Department investigated one company, Sidor, we used 
Sidor's margin in this investigation as the all-others rate.
Suspension of Liquidation
    In accordance with section 733(d) 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 export price, as indicated 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
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidor......................................................        72.81
All Others.................................................        72.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 imports of cold-rolled steel are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than fifty days 
after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than fifty-five days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination. A list 
of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 
774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in 
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any hearing will be held fifty-
seven days after publication of this notice at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the date, time, and location 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 date of 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. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative 
presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief, and may 
make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's 
rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). We will issue our final 
determination in this investigation no later than 135 days after the 
date of publication in the Federal Register of the preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 26, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-11201 Filed 5-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P