[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35479-35481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-869]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Structural Steel Beams From the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value.

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

SUMMARY: On December 28, 2001, the Department of Commerce published its 
preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value of 
structural steel beams from the People's Republic of China. The period 
of investigation is October 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received from the respondent 
and the petitioners, we have made changes in the margin calculations. 
Therefore, the final determination differs from the preliminary 
determination. Furthermore, we determine that structural steel beams 
from the People's Republic of China are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in 
section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Johnson, Catherine Cartsos, or 
Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office 3, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Case History

    The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on 
December 28, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Structural Steel Beams from The People's Republic of China, 66 FR 67197 
(December 28, 2001) (Preliminary Determination).
    On January 4, 2002, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to which 
respondent, Maanshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (Maanshan), responded on 
January 8, 2002.
    On January 7, 2002, the Department received from Maanshan a timely 
allegation of ministerial errors in the Preliminary Determination. 
Because we agreed with the respondent's ministerial-error allegations, 
we revised the margin calculations for the final determination to 
reflect the correction of these ministerial errors. See the Ministerial 
Error Comments Decision Memorandum dated January 24, 2002.
    In January 2002, we conducted verification of the questionnaire 
responses of the sole respondent in this case, Maanshan.
    On March 15, and 21, 2002, we received a case brief from the 
respondent and the petitioners (the Committee for Fair Beam Imports and 
its individual members), respectively. On March 20, 2002, the 
Department received a letter from the petitioners requesting that all 
or portions of the case brief submitted by the respondent be stricken 
from the record of the investigation because it contained new factual 
information. On March 22, 2002, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(b)(1) 
and (c)(1)(i), we sent a letter notifying the respondent that we were 
rejecting certain parts of the case brief because it contained untimely 
filed new factual information. See the letter from Laurie Parkhill 
dated March 22, 2002, rejecting certain parts of Maanshan's case brief. 
On March 25, 2002, the petitioners filed a rebuttal brief. On March 26, 
2002, Maanshan submitted a rebuttal brief. On the same day it also 
submitted a revised case brief which redacted the new factual 
information.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers doubly-symmetric shapes, 
whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having 
at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether 
of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not 
drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These structural 
steel beams include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (``W'' 
shapes), bearing piles (``HP'' shapes), standard beams (``S'' or ``I'' 
shapes), and M-shapes. All the products that meet the physical and 
metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this 
investigation unless

[[Page 35480]]

otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: (1) 
Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot, (2) 
structural steel beams that have a web or section height (also known as 
depth) over 40 inches, and (3) structural steel beams that have 
additional weldments, connectors, or attachments to I-sections, H-
sections, or pilings; however, if the only additional weldment, 
connector or attachment on the beam is a shipping brace attached to 
maintain stability during transportation, the beam is not removed from 
the scope definition by reason of such additional weldment, connector, 
or attachment.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings 
7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 
7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 7228.70.3040, 
and 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    Prior to the preliminary determination in a concurrent structural 
steel beams investigation requested that the following products be 
excluded from the scope of the investigations: (1) Beams of grade A913/
65 and (2) forklift mast profiles. We preliminarily found that both 
products fell within the scope of this investigation. Because we have 
received no further scope comments in this proceeding, we are making a 
final determination that these products fall within the scope of this 
investigation. Our analysis has not changed since our preliminary 
determination.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is October 1, 2000, through March 31, 
2001.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by the parties to this 
proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to 
this notice and addressed in the Decision Memorandum which is adopted 
by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues 
raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in 
this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, 
room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete 
version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of 
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on findings at verification and analysis of comments we 
received, we have made the adjustments described below to the margin 
calculations. See the Decision Memorandum for a discussion of these 
changes.
    (1) We used the revised database files submitted by Manshaan on 
January 14, 2002, with the exception of revisions we made for the 
consumption usages of argon, nitrogen, and oxygen (see Comment 2 of the 
Decision Memorandum).
    (2) We have used Bhoruka, an Indian manufacturer of industrial 
gases, to value oxygen, nitrogen, and argon for Maanshan instead of the 
United Nations Trade Commodity Statistics (UN Statistics). For the PRC-
wide rate, we continue to use the UN Statistics.
    (3) We recalculated labor expenses based on eight-hour workdays 
instead of six-and-a-half-hour workdays.
    (4) We included the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) as a 
surrogate company for valuing selling, general, and administrative 
costs, overhead costs, and profit; therefore, we calculated a simple 
average of the financial ratios based on data from SAIL and The Tata 
Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (TATA).
    (5) We have included commissions and other selling expenses in our 
calculated financial ratios for TATA since they are standard selling 
costs and properly categorized under SG&A in TATA's financial 
statements.
    (6) With respect to surrogate values for material inputs, we have 
made the following changes: (a) We applied more recent data from the 
United States Geological Survey 2000 Minerals Yearbook to value slag, 
(b) we used the correct harmonized tariff number to value steel strap, 
and (c) we used a brokerage and handling cost based on bulk products 
instead of stainless steel products.
    (7) We have excluded factor input prices from Korea, Thailand, and 
Indonesia when using the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of 
India. The Department has found that these countries maintain broadly 
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. In prior decisions 
the Department found that the existence of these subsidies provide 
sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices from these 
countries are distorted. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by the respondent for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as 
original source documents provided by the respondent.

Separate Rates

    In our preliminary determination, we found that the respondent had 
met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty 
rate. For a more detailed discussion, see the Department's Preliminary 
Determination.

PRC-Wide Rate and Adverse Facts Available

    For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Determination, we 
continue to find that the use of adverse facts available for the 
calculation of the PRC-wide rate is appropriate. See the Preliminary 
Determination for further discussion of this topic. As adverse facts 
available we used price quotations for U.S. price which the petitioners 
obtained from a producer of the subject merchandise. We corroborated 
the petitioners' price quotations with data submitted by Maanshan in 
its questionnaire response. The price quotations fell within the range 
of export prices reported by Maanshan and are therefore reliable and 
relevant. For normal value we used the factors of production reported 
by Maanshan and applied the valuations which we used to calculate 
normal value for Maanshan, with the exception of the factor valuations 
which we used for argon, nitrogen, and oxygen. With respect to 
Maanshan, as explained in response to Comment 2 in the Decision 
Memorandum, we used values based on the prices charged by an Indian 
producer of the gases in question. These prices were substantially 
lower than the average values we derived for argon, nitrogen, and 
oxygen based on the UN Statistics data and which we used in the 
Preliminary Determination. As adverse facts available, to calculate the 
PRC-wide rate, we have continued to value argon, nitrogen, and oxygen 
using the UN Statistics data because these represent the highest values 
on record for these particular gases. We have used

[[Page 35481]]

the highest values for the gases in question as an adverse inference 
for situations where respondents do not cooperate to the best of their 
ability. Because this information is based on official data compiled by 
the United Nations we consider it to be corroborated. Using this data, 
we have calculated a PRC-wide rate of 89.17 percent.

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the period October 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maanshan....................................................        0.00
PRC-wide rate...............................................       89.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of structural steel beams from the PRC, except for subject 
merchandise produced and exported by Maanshan (which has no margin and 
is excluded from this determination), that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of 
this final determination in the Federal Register. The Customs Service 
shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond based 
on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The 
suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until 
further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, 
whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of 
material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC 
determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.
    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 13, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

A. Comment 1: New Factual Information
B. Comment 2: Valuation of Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon
C. Comment 3: Labor Calculation
D. Comment 4: Surrogate-Company Selection for Financial Data
E. Comment 5: Financial-Ratio Calculations
F. Comment 6: By-Product Yields
G. Surrogate Values Selection
    Comment 7: Slag
    Comment 8: Iron Dust and Iron Scale
    Comment 9: Steel Strap
    Comment 10: Iron Ore
    Comment 11: Brokerage and Handling Expenses
H. Comment 12: Value of Iron Ore

[FR Doc. 02-12590 Filed 5-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P