[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35497-35500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12596]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-831]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Structural Steel Beams From Germany

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 the 
preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value of 
structural steel beams from Germany. The period of investigation is 
April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received and certain findings

[[Page 35498]]

from the verification, we have made changes in the margin calculations. 
Therefore, the final determination differs from the preliminary 
determination.
    We find that structural steel beams from Germany 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. The 
estimated margins of sales at less than fair value are shown in the 
``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0410.

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 the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 
351 (2001).

Final Determination

    We determine that structural steel beams (beams) from Germany are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act. The estimated 
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Margin'' section of 
this notice.

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 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 this case, interested 
parties in this and the concurrent structural steel beams 
investigations 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.

Case History

    We published in the Federal Register the preliminary determination 
in this investigation 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 Germany, 66 FR 67190 
(December 28, 2001) (Preliminary Determination). Since the publication 
of the Preliminary Determination, the following events have occurred.
    On January 2, 2002, Stahlwerk Thuringen GmbH (SWT), a respondent in 
this investigation, requested that the Department correct a ministerial 
error it found in the Department's margin calculations. On January 7, 
2002, the Committee for Fair Beam Imports and its individual members, 
Northwestern Steel and Wire Company, Nucor Corporation, Nucor-Yamato 
Steel Company, and TXI-Chaparral Steel Company (the petitioners), 
requested that the Department correct ministerial errors they found in 
the Department's margin calculation for SWT. On January 31, 2002, the 
Department determined that the ministerial error alleged by SWT was a 
significant ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.224(g)(1) but that the errors alleged by the petitioners were not 
ministerial errors. Accordingly, we corrected the error identified by 
SWT. We published in the Federal Register our amended preliminary 
determination in this investigation on January 31, 2002. See Notice of 
Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Structural Steel Beams From Germany, 67 FR 4703 (January 31, 2002).
    On January 21 through 25, 2002, the Department conducted 
verifications of three of SWT's affiliated resellers in Germany to 
examine SWT's claim that it could not report downstream sales by its 
affiliated resellers. See Sales Verifications of Affiliated Resellers, 
Memorandum to the File dated March 1, 2002. On January 28 through 31, 
2002, the Department conducted a verification of SWT's cost-of-
production (COP) and constructed-value (CV). See SWT COP and CV 
verification report dated March 20, 2002. On January 28 through 
February 5, 2002, the Department conducted a home-market sales data 
verification of SWT. See SWT home-market sales verification report 
dated April 2, 2002. On March 11 through 15, 2002, the Department 
conducted a U.S. sales data verification of TradeARBED Corporation 
(TANY), an affiliated U.S. reseller of merchandise produced by SWT. See 
TANY U.S. sales verification report dated March 28, 2002.
    On April 11, 2002, the petitioners and SWT submitted their case 
briefs with respect to the verifications and the Preliminary 
Determination. On April 17, 2002, the petitioners and SWT submitted 
rebuttal briefs. On April 19, 2002, we conducted a public hearing with 
a closed session with respect to the issues raised in the parties' case 
briefs.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2000, through March 
31, 2001.

Use of Facts Available

    In the Preliminary Determination, we determined that the 
application of total adverse facts available was appropriate with 
respect to Salzgitter AG (Salzgitter), as this entity failed to respond 
to our antidumping questionnaire. As adverse facts available, we 
applied a margin rate of 35.75 percent, the highest margin

[[Page 35499]]

alleged in the petition (which we were able to corroborate). See the 
Decision Memorandum for Salzgitter AG for the Preliminary Results of 
the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Structural Steel Beams from 
Germany for the Period of Investigation April 1, 2000, through March 
31, 2001, dated December 19, 2001. The interested parties did not 
object to the use of AFA for Salzgitter, or to our choice of facts 
available, and no new facts were submitted since the Preliminary 
Determination which would cause us to reconsider whether the 
information relied upon in the petition has probative value. Therefore, 
for the reasons set out in the Preliminary Determination, we have 
continued to use 35.75 percent as adverse facts available for the 
purposes of this final determination.
    We used facts available for SWT's international freight expenses. 
As facts available, we used the average ocean-freight expense SWT 
reported for west-coast ports for all U.S. sales transactions except 
for those specific transactions where the reported ocean-freight 
expense was higher than this average. For a complete discussion of why 
we used facts available for these sales and the selection of facts 
available, see comment 1 of the Structural Steel Beams from Germany 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum dated May 13, 2002 (Decision 
Memorandum), available in B-099 of the Central Records Room at the 
Department of Commerce and the web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html.
    Finally, we used adverse facts available for SWT's U.S. brokerage 
and handling expenses. We did this because, when we asked at 
verification for the documents to support the reported expense for 
ports other than the two we examined, TANY informed us that it was not 
prepared to provide these invoices, claiming that they were ``not 
available.'' See the TANY verification report at page 11. Therefore, 
because TANY was unprepared to provide the documents in question at 
verification, although it was given adequate notice that these 
documents would be reviewed,\1\ we find that it did not act to the best 
of its ability in reporting its brokerage and handling expenses related 
to certain U.S. ports. Accordingly, we have based the amount of 
brokerage and handling expenses for these ports on adverse facts 
available. As adverse facts available, we have used SWT's highest per-
port amount on the record of this proceeding. For a further discussion 
of this issue, see comment 11 of the Structural Steel Beams from Spain 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum dated May 13, 2002. However, because 
TANY was able to provide adequate documentation for two of the ports in 
question, we have accepted the expenses calculated for those ports for 
purposes of the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the February 27, 2002, verification outline for TANY at 
page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
investigation are addressed in a decision memorandum, which is hereby 
adopted by this notice. See the Decision Memorandum. A list of the 
issues which parties raised, and to which we have responded, all of 
which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an 
Appendix. As indicated above, parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in B-099. 
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be 
accessed directly on the internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by SWT 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 respondents.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our findings at verification and analysis of comments 
received, we have made adjustments to the calculation methodology in 
calculating the final dumping margins for SWT in this investigation. 
See Final Analysis Memoranda for SWT dated May 13, 2001. These 
revisions are as follows:
    1. We used the cost-of-production (COP) database that SWT submitted 
on January 14, 2002, the home-market sales database that it submitted 
on February 21, 2002, and the U.S. sales database that it submitted on 
April 16, 2002.
    2. We used the reported date of shipment as the date of sale for 
U.S. sales. We also revised SWT's reported credit expense and inventory 
carrying costs accordingly, using the short-term borrowing rate we 
verified. See the TradeARBED Corporation (TANY) U.S. sales verification 
report dated March 28, 2002, at page 12.
    3. We revised SWT's reported billing adjustments to include two 
claims that we found, at verification, that TANY did not account for in 
its reported billing adjustments.
    4. We revised SWT's U.S. indirect selling expenses to allocate a 
portion of Arbed Americas Atlantic, Inc.'s selling expenses to TANY 
rather than use the rate we calculated for ARBED Americas, Inc. In 
addition, we did not include any of TANY's or Arbed Americas Atlantic, 
Inc.'s interest expenses in our calculation of TANY's indirect selling 
expense because the imputed credit which we calculated exceeded the 
amount of interest expense attributable to TANY's sales of SWT beams. 
See the SWT final results calculation memorandum dated May 13, 2002, at 
attachment 2 for our calculation of indirect selling expenses.
    5. We replaced the warranty expense SWT reported in its February 
21, 2002, home-market sales database with the verified transaction-
specific warranty expense we verified in SWT's home-market sales 
database which it submitted on January 14, 2002. Because SWT did not 
provide observation numbers, we identified the specific transactions 
for which the warranty expenses were reported by invoice, product code, 
and quantity.
    6. As partial facts available, we used the average ocean-freight 
expense SWT reported for Los Angeles, San Francisco/Oakland, and 
Portland for all U.S. sales transactions except for those specific 
transactions where the reported ocean-freight expense was higher than 
this average.
    7. As adverse facts available, we used the highest per-port amount 
for U.S. brokerage and handling expenses on the record of this 
proceeding for all U.S. transactions except for sales through two 
ports.
    8. We revised the financial-expense rate to include other financial 
charges and bond expenses and to exclude long-term interest income 
offsets from the numerator. We also revised the denominator in the 
calculation to reflect cost of goods sold rather than raw materials.
    9. We subtracted home-market billing adjustments from home-market 
price instead of adding them to home-market price.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, for SWT, we 
are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries 
of subject merchandise from Germany that are entered, or withdrawn from

[[Page 35500]]

warehouses, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final determination in the Federal Register. For all other companies, 
we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of subject merchandise from Germany that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouses, for consumption on or after December 28, 
2001, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the 
Federal Register. The Customs Service shall continue to require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the 
normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown below. This suspension-of-
liquidation instruction will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                       percent
                                                                margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWT........................................................         8.09
Salzgitter.................................................        35.75
All Others **..............................................        8.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A), we have excluded from the
  calculation of the all-others rate margins which are zero (or de
  mimimis) or determined entirely on facts available. Because we
  determined Salzgitter's margin entirely on facts available, we used
  SWT's margin as the all-others rate.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material 
injury, or threat of material 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 for consumption on or after the effective date of 
the suspension of liquidation.
    This notice serves as the only 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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

Appendix

I. Changes From the Preliminary Determination
II. Company-Specific Issues
Comment 1: Ocean Freight Expenses Through An Affiliate
Comment 2: Date of Sale for Constructed-Export-Price Transactions
Comment 3: Sales by Affiliated Resellers in Germany
Comment 4: Home-Market Inland Freight
Comment 5: Home-Market Quantity Rebates
Comment 6: Home-Market Warranties
Comment 7: Home-Market Other Rebates
Comment 8: U.S. Billing Adjustments
Comment 9: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses
Comment 10: Interest Expense
Comment 11: Clerical-Error Allegation
Comment 12: Calculation of Weighted-Average Dumping Margin

[FR Doc. 02-12596 Filed 5-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P